Oral
Answers to
Questions

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Local Pharmacies

Michael Tomlinson: What steps he is taking to support local pharmacies.

Matthew Hancock: Community pharmacies play a vital role in our health service, but we know they can do more, and we are determined to see them do more, to keep people healthy.

Michael Tomlinson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, because he is absolutely right in what he says. The Dorset Local Pharmaceutical Committee is very active and is promoting the policy of Pharmacy First, which should help to relieve pressure on our general practitioners, and even on our accident and emergency facilities. What is he doing to support that policy?

Matthew Hancock: I agree very much with my hon. Friend that pharmacies can play an increasing role in helping to make sure that people get their healthcare where they need it, and in keeping the pressure off GPs and off secondary care by making sure that people can help themselves to stay healthy. We are piloting 111 directing people to pharmacies as well as to GPs and, where appropriate, to secondary care, and encouraging people to use pharmacies for minor ailments, but there is much more we can do together on this.

Julie Cooper: The NHS Confederation has warned that, following Brexit, the supply of some medicines and medical technologies may be delayed in reaching patients, and some may not be available at all. The chief executive officer of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has been clear that we cannot stockpile the amounts we are going to need, because we do not have sufficient cold warehouse storage. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is worried therefore that diabetics will not be able to access insulin. What steps is the Minister taking  to ensure that community pharmacies are able to supply vital medical supplies post Brexit, particularly in the event of no deal?

Matthew Hancock: Community pharmacies, like everybody else, should support the Prime Minister’s deal, which will make sure that that eventuality does not occur.

NICE Guidance: Head Lice

Emma Hardy: What assessment he has made of the potential merits of reversing NICE guidance prohibiting the prescription of head lice treatment by GPs.

Steve Brine: In the year to June 2017, the NHS spent approximately £569 million on prescriptions for medicines that could be bought over the counter from a pharmacy or supermarket. That is why, following public consultation earlier this year, NHS England issued guidance to reduce the routine prescribing of some medicines for minor, short-term ailments, including head lice treatment.

Emma Hardy: Yesterday, I met people from the charity Community Hygiene Concern, which provides cheap, reusable and effective bug-busting kits for less than £5. However, because of these NHS prescription guidance changes, these kits are no longer available, which threatens an epidemic of head lice in our schools. Surely head lice should not be considered a minor ailment. Will the Minister please write to Simon Stevens to encourage him to meet me and Community Hygiene Concern to look at this issue again?

Steve Brine: I have been itching all morning while thinking about this answer. I do not believe there is an epidemic because of NHS England’s actions. Clinical experts in the NHS advise that head lice can be safely and effectively treated by wet combing; I have very recent personal experience of doing this, as I am sure do many parents in this House. Chemical treatment is recommended only in exceptional circumstances. I had not heard of the charity the hon. Lady mentions, but as we discussed before questions, I am happy to facilitate that interaction.

Michael Fabricant: In France, where head lice are more common per capita than in the UK, people make good use of pharmacies, because it costs money to visit a general practitioner and because the state promotes the role of pharmacies. May I therefore ask the Minister why do we not advertise that we should be using pharmacies more often than not, instead of going to a GP?

John Bercow: Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the matter of head lice. [Interruption.] It seemed to be slightly tangential, but never mind. The hon. Gentleman was at least attempting to shoehorn his preoccupation into the question, but I will err on the side of generosity. I know that he knows all about heads and all about hair—

Michael Fabricant: But not lice!

John Bercow: Indeed.

Steve Brine: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is familiar with wet combing his hair.

Michael Fabricant: Only with my gel.

Steve Brine: Only with his gel. He is absolutely right that, as the Secretary of State just said, community pharmacies are experts in so many minor health matters, and Pharmacy First can absolutely be used when it comes to head lice as well.

Barry Sheerman: rose—

John Bercow: Is the hon. Gentleman feeling jumpy or does he wish to contribute?

Barry Sheerman: I was just nit-picking.

John Bercow: Ah, the House is in a very jocular mood. Long may it last.

Steve Brine: It will soon be Christmas.

Public Health Funding (Local Authorities)

Mike Amesbury: What recent representations he has received on the potential merits of increasing public health funding to local authorities.

Steve Brine: We have had lots; it is just that none come with any idea of how that might be paid for. The Government have a strong track record on public health. Local authorities in England have received more than £16 billion in ring-fenced public health grants over the current spending period. Decisions on future funding for that area of spending are of course for the next spending review.

Mike Amesbury: On current projections, over £800 million will have been cut from public health budgets by 2021, £2 million of which has been cut from vital services in my constituency relating to sexual health, and to tackle obesity and smoking. Will the Minister guarantee that the new NHS long-term plan will reverse the cuts to public health budgets?

Steve Brine: I know that Opposition Members like to pretend that the past eight and a half years did not have to happen, but there is a reason why they had to happen—the economy was crashed—and eight and a half years is not a long time to clear up the mess of the last Government. But we are very clear, as the hon. Gentleman should know, that a focus on prevention will be central to the long-term plan. He mentions child obesity—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may wish to listen. The public health grant remains ring-fenced and protected for use exclusively on improving health, but local government spending on health is not just about the public health grant. The Government spend money on many other things, including around the child obesity plan and vaccinations, and that is all around prevention and public health.

John Bercow: Far too long.

Philip Hollobone: As local government is reorganised in Northamptonshire ahead of May 2020, will the Minister consider whether it may   not be appropriate in all cases for local councils to manage public health budgets, and whether in some cases it might make sense for the NHS to regain control?

Steve Brine: There are active discussions going on between my right hon. Friends the Health Secretary and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government about this, but the bottom line is that Parliament legislated through the Health and Social Care Act 2012 for local authorities up and down the country in England to be public health authorities. We believe that they are well placed to make these spending decisions with the ring-fenced grant—£16 billion —that we have given them.

Tim Farron: The underfunding of public health in Cumbria means that the NHS spends only 75p per child per year on preventive mental health care. Added to that, over three quarters of young people with eating disorders are not seen within the target time of a month, and in the event that they are seen, there is no specialist one-to-one eating disorder service to see them, despite the Government promising three years ago that there would be. Will the Minister meet me and our local NHS so that we can get a better deal for our young people on all three of these points?

Steve Brine: The hon. Gentleman will remember, of course, that £1 billion extra was put into mental health in the Budget last month, but I would absolutely be interested to hear from him. There are very good things going on up and down the country in local authorities with the ring-fenced £16 billion that we have given them. We are very interested to hear about where there are good examples of things going on, and the long-term future discussions around them will take in the spending review, as I have said.

Sharon Hodgson: The Secretary of State claims that prevention is one of his top three priorities, yet this year alone the Government have slashed public health budgets by £96 million. That includes cuts to smoking cessation services, sexual health services, obesity and addiction services and many more. This affects the most vulnerable in our society, so will the Minister do the right thing today and cut the rhetoric, commit to reversing these damaging cuts to public health, and put funding in the long-term plan?

Steve Brine: The hon. Lady—my shadow Minister—knows that I have a great deal of respect for her. She mentioned smoking; smoking rates in England are at their lowest ever levels. We hear spending commitment after spending commitment from the Labour Government; it is like the arsonist turning up at the scene of a fire. I will take very seriously, as I am sure will the Treasury, her bid towards the spending review discussions, but yes, prevention is better than cure and it will be at the heart of the long-term plan.

Healthier Lives

Jim Shannon: What steps he is taking to support people to lead healthier lives.

Bob Neill: What steps he is taking to ensure that people take greater personal responsibility for leading healthier lives.

Matthew Hancock: Prevention is indeed better than cure. As well as having a right to expect NHS services to be free at the point of use, we all have responsibility for our own health, and to use the NHS responsibly.

Jim Shannon: I recently met Breast Cancer Now—the Secretary of State will be aware of it. It has 10 priorities for the NHS long-term plan. Has he made an assessment of the impact of the real-terms 5% cut in public health budgets on reducing the incidence of cancer?

Matthew Hancock: There are many things we need to do to diagnose cancer early, and of course public health is part of that, but there is a much bigger agenda, and that includes more screening. We have seen an increase in the number of people invited to screening, but we need to get the screening right, so I have instituted a review of all our screening processes for cancer and other diseases.

Bob Neill: Will my right hon. Friend look at the work done by Connect Well Bromley, a partnership funded by the local clinical commissioning group but delivered by Bromley Third Sector Enterprise and Community Links Bromley? That partnership sets out what is in effect a social prescribing programme of activities and services to deal with wellbeing issues at an early stage. Is that a model for elsewhere in the country?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, it is. I have been briefed on the example that Bromley is setting, which has been brought to my attention by its brilliant local representative, my hon. Friend. Social prescribing systems such as this one are on the rise, because the evidence shows that social prescribing helps to keep people healthy and out of hospital.

Luciana Berger: A fortnight ago, during his statement to the House on prevention and how the Government intend to keep our nation well, the Secretary of State told me that he would look at my Health Impacts (Public Sector Duty) Bill, which had its Second Reading on Friday. Unfortunately, on Friday, the Government objected to my Bill. Which elements of the Bill did the Secretary of State object to?

Matthew Hancock: I know the hon. Lady has done an awful lot of work on this, and I respect that work. We did look at the Bill, but we thought it was, unfortunately, technically deficient. I know she cares a lot about this, however, as do I, and I want to work with her to see what we can do.

Dan Jarvis: According to Office for National Statistics figures, over the past five years, there have been 150,000 excess winter deaths—a mortality rate twice that in Germany and Norway. What specific work is the Secretary of State doing to reduce the number of deaths this coming winter?

Matthew Hancock: This year, since I became Secretary of State, we have put an extra £420 million in to make sure we are as well prepared as possible. The NHS is of course under pressure, although it is performing exceptionally well, in terms of how much it does for the money going in, and from next year, we will put in the extra £20 billion. I want part of the long-term plan to be about how we can plan for the long term, instead of having this annual cycle of winter pressures.

Tracey Crouch: Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of joining volunteer leader John Goodwin and others on a health walk around Capstone park in my constituency—one of a number of health walks supported by Medway Council. Will the Secretary of State join me in encouraging more GPs to prescribe walking as a gentle, low-impact form of exercise that is suitable for all ages and abilities?

Matthew Hancock: With enthusiasm, I endorse the call from my hon. Friend, who did so much work on this at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, both before I was in that Department and when I was Secretary of State there. She made the case brilliantly, and she continues to do so. She is absolutely right.

Stephen Gethins: Everyone in the House is indebted to public health workers, who help us to lead healthier lives, be they in local authorities or the NHS. Many of them are EU nationals. Does the Secretary of State share my concerns about the term “queue jumpers”? Will he apologise for it, and will he go further and make sure that no public health worker faces additional costs to remain in their home in the UK?

Matthew Hancock: Every EU worker across our health and social care system—whether in the NHS, or working in public health, in local authorities or in social care—is welcome here, and is supported to be welcome here, and we look forward to the settled status scheme rolling out. We are grateful for their service.

Theresa Villiers: GP appointments are vital for many to lead healthy lives, so will the Secretary of State give his strong personal support to the work of our fantastic GPs, and encourage the NHS to put general practice at the heart of the £20 billion future plan?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. General practice will be at the heart of the long-term plan. GPs are the bedrock of the NHS. We will put an extra £3.5 billion, at least, into primary and community services to help keep people healthy and prevent them from going to hospital.

Jon Ashworth: The Secretary of State got into a muddle last week with his GP figures, so may I suggest that he download an exciting new app to his phone? It is called a calculator. He has said that there will be more for community and primary care by 2024. Can he guarantee that there will be the extra GPs and district nurses to provide the services that he is promising?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I can; given that we have the money coming into the NHS, we are doing everything possible to ensure that we have the people to do the work. I am delighted to say that we have a record number of GPs in training right now.

Jon Ashworth: But GP numbers have gone  down by 700 in the last year, have they not? There are 107,000 vacancies across the NHS, acute trusts are closing accident and emergency departments overnight, the closure of chemotherapy departments is being considered, and Health Education England’s training budget is the lowest that it has been for five years, with more cuts to come next year. Does the Secretary of  State agree that if the long-term plan that he will publish next week is to be credible, he must reverse those training cuts and deliver the staff that our NHS needs?

Matthew Hancock: That was a bit of a surprise, because the hon. Gentleman is normally such a reasonable fellow. I thought that he would welcome the record number of GPs in training, and the record number of nurses in the NHS. Because we love the NHS, of course we want to do more, and we will.

GP Access: Learning Disabilities

Marsha de Cordova: What assessment he has made of the ability of people with learning disabilities to access GPs.

Caroline Dinenage: People with learning disabilities still face significant health inequalities. Data from 2017 shows that about half of patients with a learning disability received an annual GP health check, and our target is 75% by 2020. We will shortly consult on plans to introduce mandatory learning disability and autism training for all health and care staff.

Marsha de Cordova: There are shocking health inequalities between people with learning disabilities and the general population, and that is recognised by GPs: 60% say that they have received less than a day’s training in how to meet the needs of patients with learning disabilities and autism, while 98% say that they would appreciate more training. The Government are clearly failing people with learning disabilities. Will they commit themselves to ensuring that every new GP who is trained in England is also given training in how to meet the needs of people with learning disabilities and autism?

Caroline Dinenage: Yes. That is already part of the training framework. As I have said, however, we are consulting from early next year on plans to make training on learning disabilities and autism mandatory for all health and care staff, not just medical professionals.

David Duguid: Let me start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his support last Thursday on 22q Awareness Day; 22q11 deletion syndrome is second only to Down’s syndrome in its prevalence as a genetic condition, but perhaps surprisingly, there is a remarkably low level of awareness among GPs of this condition, which can lead to avoidable mental health issues in children. Will the Minister meet me to discuss options to increase awareness in the first instance, but also to improve early diagnosis and treatment?

Caroline Dinenage: I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the excellent work that he is doing to draw attention to this condition, and I should be happy to meet him.

Health Inequalities (England)

Debbie Abrahams: What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of health inequalities across England.

Jackie Doyle-Price: We know from recent trends reported to the public health outcomes framework that health inequalities persist in this country. We already have world-leading programmes to address the root causes of poor health, including programmes to deal with childhood obesity, control tobacco and prevent diabetes and heart disease. The Prime Minister has set an ambition to ensure that people can enjoy at least five extra healthy independent years of life by 2035, while narrowing the gap between the experiences of the richest and the poorest, and next year the Secretary of State will set out further plans to achieve that in his prevention Green Paper.

Debbie Abrahams: We have known for decades that poverty and economic inequality drive health inequalities. The richer people are, the longer they live, and the longer they live in good health. In addition to the economic analyses of the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal, what assessment has the Minister made of the deal’s impacts on health inequalities, and on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, which we know are already falling in some parts of the country, and among some groups of people?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The reasons for health inequalities are complex, but obviously we encourage people to make the lifestyle changes that enable everyone to live longer. I simply do not accept that the direct causality that the hon. Lady has outlined is as clear as that. We will focus on programmes that help people to lead healthier lives with better diets; that tackle tobacco control; and that prevent diabetes.

Andrew Selous: As it is the most deprived children who are most overweight, will the Minister call on Kellogg’s to follow the example of Nestlé and put traffic light colours on all its products so that people can make healthier choices?

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Clearly the more we can do to educate people to make informed choices to improve their diet, the better. He is absolutely right: poor health among children used to be indicated by being underweight, but now being overweight is very much an indicator. I congratulate any food manufacturer that is taking action to address the problem.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister and the ministerial team know that many working-class people do not have good access to GPs, and that GPs treat them differently from more middle-class people, as demonstrated by the number of people from poorer backgrounds with atrial fibrillation who are wrongly diagnosed. If they are diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat or pulse, they are given the wrong drugs. That happens to many ordinary people in this country: there are still all these wonderful GPs prescribing aspirin that will do no good at all. What is going on with GPs and poorer people?

Jackie Doyle-Price: Our NHS is full of people who are doing their best to deliver the best possible care for all their patients. It is important that GPs and any health practitioners consider the holistic needs of all their patients—

Barry Sheerman: They’re killing people.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The hon. Gentleman says they are killing people; that is not the debate I want on the NHS.

Luke Graham: Scotland has the lowest life expectancies of all parts of the United Kingdom, with the figures falling for the first time in 35 years. The average life expectancy in 2017 was 77 years for men and 81.1 for women, compared with 79.2 for men and 82.9 for women in the rest of the UK. What can my hon. Friend do to support the devolved Administration to ensure that Scotland is not left behind the rest of the United Kingdom?

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. I am always very keen to work with the devolved nations to both learn from what they do well and to share our expertise and experience where we are doing better, and I hope we will all co-operate to do exactly that.

Alison Thewliss: Initiating breastfeeding at birth can help reduce to health inequalities. Due to the actions of the Scottish Government, breastfeeding rates in Scotland are at a record high, whereas in England they are falling back dramatically because of local cuts. What will the Minister do to increase breastfeeding rates in England?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I commend the hon. Lady for her leadership on the issue, and she is right that this is one of the most significant public health interventions we can make at the earliest point in life. I will happily line up with her to do more to champion breastfeeding, and there is certainly a lot further to go, not least in ensuring that society is more tolerant of the practice and that women really do enjoy their right to breastfeed.

Childhood Obesity

Luke Hall: What steps he is taking to tackle childhood obesity.

Steve Brine: In June we published chapter 2 of our child obesity plan, which built on the world-leading measures we introduced in 2016, including bold new measures to halve child obesity by 2030.

Luke Hall: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the launch this week of South Gloucestershire Council’s Reach programme? It is an evidence-based service for obese and overweight children aged between four and 16 in South Gloucestershire and their families, aimed at improving the wellbeing of young people and building their esteem, and raising issues of weight gain between and among families.

Steve Brine: I certainly will; we need a collective effort to achieve the national ambition of halving child obesity by 2030, and that means we need local initiatives such as the Reach programme to support families and help them make positive lifestyle choices. I pass on my congratulations to South Gloucestershire Council on its programme.

Chris Evans: Many children who are referred for treatment with problems related to being overweight might be suffering from eating disorders. Eating disorders come in all shapes and sizes, from anorexia right through to body dysmorphia. However, a recent ombudsman report says many people are facing longer waiting times and not receiving the help they need. Will the Government now prioritise ensuring people with eating disorders get the treatment they need?

Steve Brine: Through our work on parity of esteem for physical and mental health, we take eating disorders very seriously. That is not directly related to the child obesity plan, but we are absolutely determined to tackle weight challenges at either end of the scale, because I know that they affect a lot of people.

Nicholas Dakin: Obesity is now one of the biggest risks to health and a significant cause of cancer and other conditions. Is it not time to look at restricting the advertising of junk food up to 9 o’clock?

Steve Brine: I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman and do a lot of work with him. He knows that we published proposals in the child obesity plan to launch a consultation on a pre-9 pm watershed ban, and we will be bringing that forward before the end of the year as promised.

Young Cancer Sufferers: Costs of Travel

Robert Halfon: What estimate his Department has made of the number of children and young people with cancer who are unable to access treatment due to the cost of travel.

Steve Brine: No child or young person with cancer should be unable to access the treatment they need because of the cost of travelling to hospital. Through the healthcare travel costs scheme, which is part of the NHS low income scheme, parents in  receipt of a qualifying benefit or on a low income can claim for the reimbursement of travel costs for their  children’s treatment. To date, the scheme has helped some 337,000 people.

Robert Halfon: CLIC Sargent, the charity for children with cancer, has shown that families in my constituency with children with cancer can face a 54-mile round trip to get to their nearest treatment location, which can cost them up to £161.58 a month. Families are incurring thousands of pounds of debt paying for parking and driving their children to their cancer treatment. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that only 6% of parents of children with cancer are reported as having received financial help from the NHS healthcare travel costs assistance scheme? Does he recognise that the scheme is not designed to meet the needs of children and young people who need highly specialised treatment—

John Bercow: Order. Far too long.

Steve Brine: Yes, we do recognise that there is a challenge there. I gave evidence to the all-party parliamentary group on children, teenagers and young  adults with cancer, and I have a copy of the “Listen Up” report here. CLIC Sargent is part of the secretariat for that group. We are looking at this issue through the long-term plan, and I look forward to meeting my right hon. Friend along with CLIC Sargent in the next few weeks as planned.

John Bercow: An exemplar of eloquent brevity: Helen Jones.

Helen Jones: Access to services is very important for those in the poorest areas of my constituency. Warrington Hospital has been losing services over time, but it has now sought to become a cancer hub for north Cheshire. Will the Minister ensure that, in the case of such applications, access to services for the poorest people is considered along with other factors?

Steve Brine: Yes, we are interested in access to services for all people, wherever they are on the income scheme. The hon. Lady is right to raise that issue. We need to do better on cancer diagnosis, so I would be interested to hear more about the cancer hub that she mentions.

Sexual Health Services

Nick Smith: What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of demand for sexual health services.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Since 2013, when local authorities took on responsibility for these services, attendance has increased from 2.9 million to 3.3 million. Tests for sexually transmitted infections and access to long-acting contraception have also increased, which shows that people are taking their sexual health seriously and that services are responding.

Nick Smith: Unfortunately, syphilis and gonorrhoea diagnoses are up 20% since 2016. What are the Government going to do to address this growing trend, given that sexual health services are at their limit?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The evidence I have is that sexually transmitted infection rates are stable, that rates of teen pregnancy are falling, that rates of abortion are stable and that rates of HIV testing are increasing. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I will look into it. The most important thing is not necessarily where or how people access their services, because we want to make tests and long-term contraception available online too. We will keep the issue under review.

Diana R. Johnson: Does the Minister agree with the chief medical officer, who said in her evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee that she thought the cuts to sexual health services had gone too far?

Jackie Doyle-Price: As I said in my previous answer, the important thing is to look at outcomes. We can see that levels of teen pregnancy and sexual infection are stable and that more people are accessing contraception. We need to ensure that people can access contraception in the most convenient way for them, and we can see that rates of access are on the increase.

Community Hospitals

Hugo Swire: What his policy is on the future of community hospitals.

Caroline Dinenage: Community healthcare plays a vital role in helping people stay independent and healthy. Last week, the Prime Minister set out a major new investment in primary and community healthcare worth £3.5 billion a year by 2023-24.

Hugo Swire: I am extremely grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came down to East Devon on his first visit outside London. He was able to visit the health and wellbeing hub that we have created in Budleigh Salterton, learn about the beds that we have kept in Sidmouth and Exmouth, and see Ottery St Mary Hospital. Will the Minister instruct all her officials to work collectively with us and the local community in Ottery St Mary to ensure that the hospital has a great future and fits in with the rest of local healthcare provision?

Caroline Dinenage: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his elegant Movember facial decoration. I very much recommend that he keeps it.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was delighted to visit the East Devon constituency recently, where he was impressed by the work at some of the existing community hospitals and care hubs and discussed with Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust how it will work on a sustainable future for the constituency’s community hospital in Ottery St Mary.

Helen Goodman: Since the Department says that it likes community hospitals, why are services and wards closing at the Richardson in Barnard Castle?

Caroline Dinenage: We know that patients prefer to be treated in their local area, which is much better for preventing hospital admission and getting people out of hospital for longer. However, such clinical decisions must be taken at a local level in consultation with local people.

Sarah Wollaston: Dartmouth has lost its much-loved community hospital. Unfortunately, that loss has been compounded by the closure of River View nursing home, which had been due to house some replacement facilities. The total loss of community beds in isolated coastal communities such as Dartmouth is causing a collapse of trust in such programmes. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the situation in Dartmouth and the loss of nursing home and community beds?

Caroline Dinenage: I will of course meet my hon. Friend. She is right that we need to keep such valuable local resources right in the community, where they are most needed and where they keep people out of acute hospital services and surrounded by their friends and family.

Jamie Stone: The usage of Caithness General Hospital in Wick in my constituency is way below what it was originally  designed for, causing my constituents great anxiety if they have to travel over 200 miles to Inverness and back. Mr Speaker, you will tell me that such matters are devolved, so will the Government share best practice on community hospitals with the Scottish Government and NHS Highland?

John Bercow: What a wily fellow to get the question in order. Well done, man.

Caroline Dinenage: I am happy to work with our colleagues in Scotland to push forward best practice in helping to support community facilities and to ensure that they are investing in facilities at the heart of people’s local areas, which is where they are needed.

Ed Vaizey: Wantage Community Hospital was built and opened by the local community in 1927, but it has been closed for two years. Moves are afoot to improve both our local health centre and health facilities in Didcot, but all that must be joined up and the community needs an answer. Will the Minister use her power to convene a meeting of local stakeholders and her officials to find a way through the maze and a future for our hospital?

Caroline Dinenage: I am always happy to speak to my right hon. Friend about such things. I understand that the intention is now to move to a more place-based approach to health and care planning in his local area, but all such changes are subject to consultation.

Alison McGovern: I will be honest, I am confused. We have heard the Minister say several times that community approaches are important, but our walk-in centre in Eastham is yet again being threatened with closure. Which is it—do this Tory Government want crowded A&Es or proper walk-in centres that will prevent people from unnecessarily ending up at A&E?

Caroline Dinenage: I do not think I can make it any clearer: this Government are committed to providing community services right where people need them, and we are putting our money where our mouth is. Last week, the Prime Minister announced a major new investment in primary and community healthcare of £3.5 billion.

A&E Targets

Gill Furniss: What the timetable is for the NHS to meet its target of seeing 95 per cent. of A&E patients within four hours.

Stephen Hammond: rose—

Hear, hear.

Stephen Hammond: Thank you very much.
The Government’s mandate to NHS England for 2018-19 clearly sets out A&E performance, and it will see performance improve. So far this year 18 million more attendances have been seen within the standard, and the NHS is introducing more options for urgent patient care. Of course, as the hon. Lady will know, the extra £20 billion a year that is going into the health service will ensure that more patients are seen in A&E.

Gill Furniss: According to a recent poll of doctors by the Royal College of Physicians, almost six in 10 doctors report feeling very worried or worried about the ability of their hospital to deliver safe patient care over the winter period. What is the Secretary of State or the Minister doing to help our hard-working NHS staff provide the best possible care for patients?

Stephen Hammond: The NHS faces a challenging winter, but it has been planning throughout the year for this winter. It has been supported by an extra £420 million to redevelop A&Es, improve emergency care and help patients get home quicker. Those plans, more directly, include reducing the extended hospital stays we saw last year, increasing access to GP appointments and increasing the volume of cases that can be treated by emergency dentists.

Jeremy Lefroy: Last week I visited the A&E at County Hospital, Stafford, which achieved 95.8% on the four-hour target in the week beginning  22 October and has consistently achieved over 95% for the past few months. Will the Minister come to Stafford to see what a great job it is doing, and to see how we  can use County Hospital more and bring more services into it?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend has always been an assiduous advocate for his constituents and their concerns. He is right to make that case today. He is also right that, thanks to the hard-working staff in his hospital and across the country, the four-hour target continues to be met for nearly nine out of 10 patients. I will be delighted to come to Stafford.

Gregory Campbell: Does the Minister agree that what considerably exacerbates A&E waiting times at the weekend is when, on occasion, our highly valued NHS staff come under attack? We should have a zero-tolerance approach to any attacks on those highly valued members of staff.

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There can be no statement other than complete condemnation of attacks. We have changed the law, and it came into force earlier this month.

Justin Madders: I welcome the Minister to his place. Although he is new, he will know that the A&E waiting target is not a recent initiative. It is a key part of the NHS constitution, but it has not been met for over three years. If he cannot make a commitment today on when the target will be met, will he accept that, at least for this winter under this Government, the NHS will once again be underfunded?

Stephen Hammond: As I said in my earlier answer, we recognise that this winter will be challenging. We recognise that the A&E performance standard is not currently being met, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are investing an extra £20 billion in the NHS to ensure that the standards are met. The NHS will use that investment to treat 250,000 more patients and to improve A&E performance across the country.

Nursing Higher Education

Laurence Robertson: What recent estimate he has made of the number of people entering nursing higher education; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Hammond: The latest UCAS data from October 2018 show that demand for nursing courses remains strong, with applications exceeding the number of places available this year. The number of acceptances to nursing and midwifery courses in 2018 is consistent with earlier years at approximately 22,000. The final data will be published in December 2018.

Laurence Robertson: Does the Minister accept that student nurses face pressures from the long hours they have to study and the long hours they spend on placements, which makes it very difficult for them also to carry out paid work? Is there any more the Government can do to support student nurses financially as they go through college?

Stephen Hammond: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we recognise the vital role that nurses play, and we are determined to support them. We are determined to have more nurses in training and more nurses treating patients. At the moment, a student on the loan system typically achieves 25% more in their pocket than they would have had on the bursary, but the Government recognise that there are still pressures, which is why we have the learning support fund, the exceptional hardship fund and support for mature students.

Karin Smyth: I talk to local employers who desperately want to support nursing apprenticeships as an alternative to the higher education route, but the uptake of apprenticeships is very disappointing. The levy can be used only for training costs, and trusts have been asked to plug the shortfall in funding for wider capacity building and to cover the 20% of time for which apprentices have to go to off-the-job training. Does the Department recognise this problem? What is being done to address it?

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Lady is right that the number of trusts that currently use the levy is not as high as it should be. We hope that all will do so. It continues to be a priority for us to broaden the routes into nursing. We will address in the long-term plan the specific matter about which the hon. Lady talks.

NHS: Workforce Vacancies

Sandy Martin: What estimate he has made of the level of workforce vacancies in the NHS.

Stephen Hammond: The NHS employs more staff now than at any other time in its 70-year history. It has recruited 18,200 more doctors and 11,000 more nurses are in our wards since 2010. NHS Improvement publishes vacancy rates using provider information. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the record investment that the Government are providing will ensure that the number of vacancies reduces.

Sandy Martin: With Suffolk’s only psychiatric intensive care unit having been closed down from April to October this year because of lack of staff, and with a two-to-three-month waiting list for counselling, does the Minister not understand that his reassurances do not bear much relationship to people’s lived experience?

Stephen Hammond: I am aware that the local trust has had a number of problems and that there were a number of bed closures—both temporary and permanent —earlier this year. The trust is closely monitoring how those closures are affecting services and patients. The hon. Gentleman will know that beds are being reopened—five beds have been reopened recently—and that there is a plan to put in place the staffing so that the whole ward can reopen in the near future.

Jeff Smith: The Department’s own statistics show that more than 23,000 mental health staff left the workforce last year. That is an eighth of the total mental health workforce. How can we possibly get parity for mental health when more than one in 10 posts are vacant and staff are leaving?

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are committed to having more nurses and more staff in training, that we are putting in place extra measures to ensure that specialities are supported through that training process and that the extra £20 billion in the long-term plan will ensure that there are the staff and nurses needed to fill those vacancies.

John Bercow: We are running over time, so very briefly, please, Dr Philippa Whitford.

Philippa Whitford: Last week, the Secretary of State claimed that the number of GPs in England had increased by more than 1,000 from June to September, when the data actually showed a drop of 10 full-time equivalent doctors. In 2015, his predecessor promised an extra 5,000 GPs by 2020, but so far there are 1,000 fewer, so how does the Secretary of State plan to meet that target in just the next year?

Stephen Hammond: As the hon. Lady knows from a previous answer, we are committed to making sure that 5,000 extra GP places are available. There are more GPs in training than before, and 52,000 nurses are now in training. We will ensure that the number of GPs in training meets the target.

Philippa Whitford: I find that hard to believe when there is only a year left of the five-year promise.
Scotland has 30% more GPs per head of population, but last year we lost 14% of our EU doctors, and England lost 19%. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the hostile language of the Brexit debate is making the UK seem unwelcoming and making it harder for all four UK health services to recruit?

Stephen Hammond: There are currently more doctors from the EU treating patients in the national health service than on referendum day. We are committed to the 5,000 target.

NHS: Long-term Funding

Jack Brereton: What steps he is taking to ensure that the NHS has sufficient long-term funding.

Matthew Hancock: We are increasing the NHS budget by £20.5 billion in real terms over the next five years. It is a major investment to make sure that the NHS is there for us all.

Jack Brereton: Royal Stoke University Hospital continues to be in financial special measures, and local clinical commissioning groups are now projecting significant overspends in their budgets. How will the Secretary of State ensure that stressed health economies such as those in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire get a significant share of the additional £20.5 billion?

Matthew Hancock: Clearly, part of the £20.5 billion of extra funding that taxpayers are putting into the NHS over the next five years is for ensuring that services can be put on a sustainable footing, and that includes some of the highly stressed services such as those in Stoke.

Paul Williams: How do the Government plan to use funds to better identify perinatal mental health problems? Half of all women with perinatal mental health problems say that the current system does not identify their need.

Matthew Hancock: I very much agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We need to do much more on this subject. It is incredibly important, and there will be more to hear in the long-term plan.

Leaving the EU: Medicines and Medical Equipment

Adrian Bailey: What assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the ability of the NHS to access medicines and medical equipment.

Emma Reynolds: What assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the ability of the NHS to access medicines and medical equipment.

Matthew Hancock: The deal that the Prime Minister struck to leave the EU will ensure access to medicines and medical equipment, so it is another good reason to vote for the deal.

Adrian Bailey: In the event of no deal, what steps would be taken to secure the supply of medicines beyond the six-week stockpile that has been recommended by the Government to the drug companies?

Matthew Hancock: Well, of course, while voting for the deal is the best way to ensure the unhindered supply of medicines and medical devices, as a responsible Government we are also planning for the unlikely event of no deal, and that planning includes ensuring that we can continue to get unhindered access after the six weeks for which we are making sure that supplies are available.

Emma Reynolds: We are currently an influential member of the European Medicines Agency, which gives patients access to new medicines six months sooner than non-members. Given that the political declaration reduces us to exploring the possibility of co-operation with the EMA, will the Secretary of State admit that there are no guarantees for patients and that it is very likely that they will have to wait longer?

Matthew Hancock: No, because in the event, under any circumstances, we will make sure that there are no further burdens on ensuring that medicines can get licensed here so that patients can use them, but it is another reason why the hon. Lady should vote for the deal.

Anna Soubry: rose—

John Bercow: I will call the right hon. Lady on the condition that she can ask her question in one relatively brief sentence. [Interruption.] No? Go on, you can  do it.

Anna Soubry: Many people say that the much-heralded £20 billion extra for the NHS is some sort of Brexit dividend. In the event that our country remains in the European Union, will the Secretary of State confirm that that extra 3.4% a year will continue and that £20 billion will be made available to our NHS?

Matthew Hancock: I am afraid that I will have to let my right hon. Friend know that we are leaving the European Union on 29 March.

Traditional and Western Healthcare

David Tredinnick: Whether he has made an assessment of the effectiveness of integrated traditional and western medicinal healthcare services in (a) the People’s Republic of China, (b) France and (c) India for the forthcoming NHS 10-year plan.

Steve Brine: The NHS long-term plan, backed by the extra investment by 2023 and confirmed by the Chancellor in the Budget, will set out a sustainable vision for the NHS to make strides towards it being the safest, highest-quality healthcare system anywhere in the world, learning from everywhere and anywhere in the world over the next 10 years.

David Tredinnick: According to the flyer for the post-launch party, the integrated care systems will be considered. Will the Minister make sure that he looks at the use of homeopathy by French pharmacists, the three quarters of a million doctors using traditional healthcare in the Ayush Ministry in India and the 55,000 state hospitals using acupuncture in the People’s Republic of China?

Steve Brine: The NHS should always look to learn from the best healthcare systems and practices anywhere in the world provided they are backed by evidence.

Topical Questions

Luke Hall: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Matthew Hancock: This month, we launched our vision for the prevention of ill health that sets out measures to help increase life expectancy by at least five years because prevention is better than cure. We need to give people responsibility for their own health, while empowering them to make the right decisions in the right way. We are also saving more than £1 billion on the NHS drugs budget and committing more than £3.5 billion to primary and community care. Next month, we will publish the long-term plan for how we spend the extra £20 billion committed to the future of the NHS.

Luke Hall: 19 November marked the three-year licence of the cystic fibrosis drug, Orkambi, in the UK, which is still not available on the NHS. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether there has been any further consideration to provide interim access to this treatment for patients, such as my constituents Annabelle Brennan and Cameron Jameson, while these negotiations continue?

Matthew Hancock: The NHS and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence have written to Vertex, the company involved. I am determined to see progress. We have made the largest ever proposal to Vertex, at half a billion pounds. It needs to engage with this very generous offer, which will mean that everyone wins, most of all those suffering from this awful condition. The ball is in Vertex’s court.

Barbara Keeley: The learning disabilities mortality review—the LeDeR—investigated 1,000 early deaths of people with learning disabilities in hospital settings, but today major concerns have been raised by the parents of Oliver McGowan about the way in which some deaths have been investigated. The Secretary of State knows that 40 autistic people and people with learning disabilities died in assessment and treatment units, and he has called for a year-long review of the use of seclusion in ATUs. But that is not urgent action. Will he commit to stopping the use of ATUs immediately and to looking urgently at how early deaths are being investigated, particularly that of Oliver McGowan?

Caroline Dinenage: I have met Oliver McGowan’s mum, Paula, on a number of occasions, so I am more than aware of this case. I have spoken to her about the deeply distressing report she has had on Oliver’s death. The NHS is looking into this case and will continue to work with Bristol University to further develop and improve guidance and local review teams.

Johnny Mercer: The Secretary of State and I spent the night together at Derriford Hospital down in Plymouth, so he will be aware of the unique challenges facing that hospital, which has not had an infrastructure expansion since the 1970s. We have a bid in at the moment. Can we hear whether we have done well before Christmas?

Matthew Hancock: I can recommend to anybody spending the night with my hon. Friend in Derriford Hospital, where we learnt a huge amount. The team there were absolutely amazing and it was a brilliant experience. I also learnt a lot about the capital bid, which I have been keeping my eye on very closely. My hon. Friend should hear shortly.

Kerry McCarthy: My niece Maisie turned 14 last week, and she has cystic fibrosis. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to say that letters are being sent back and forth between the drugs company and NICE. Will he get the relevant parties in a room, with him chairing the meeting, so that teenagers such as Maisie can have the drugs that will certainly change their lives, if not save them?

Matthew Hancock: I have a huge amount of sympathy for the hon. Lady’s point. We did act to ensure that the parties came together. The offer has been made and the response from the company has frankly not been good enough. It needs to come to the table; the ball is in its court.

Philip Dunne: Does the Minister agree that last week’s success by Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust management in securing sufficient qualified clinicians to keep the A&E and Telford’s Princess Royal Hospital open 24/7, rather than closing it overnight, is a positive first step on the journey out of special measures?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. I welcome the trust’s recent announcement that it now has enough middle-grade doctors and nurses to keep the Prince Royal Hospital’s A&E open 24/7. It has been receiving some excellent support from NHS Improvement, and I hope that it will achieve similar success in improving the quality of care as that support continues.

Lisa Nandy: It has been eight months since the child abuse inquiry that the Prime Minister set up recommended urgently that compensation be paid to the survivors of the child migration programmes. The Prime Minister said that she would act; she did not. The Minister said that she would respond; she has not. Twenty-two people have died since that report was published. How can we believe a single word said by the Government today, when so many promises to people who deserve better have been broken? Where is the response to this report?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The hon. Lady makes a very good point. When we last discussed this matter over the Dispatch Box, I said that it was my ambition to come back to her as soon as possible, but we have to agree a cross-Government response, which is imminent. However, she is quite right; we really need to respond as soon as possible.

Andrew Bridgen: Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting Oakthorpe Primary School in my constituency to celebrate its gold award for mental health and wellbeing from Leeds Beckett University. Will the Minister outline to the  House what further support the Government are offering schools to help them deal with children’s mental health issues?

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have brought forward proposals to have a mental health lead in all schools. We are also introducing a brand new workforce to support schools and improve mental health provision. The first wave of staff are being recruited for training now, and we have 210 applicants for the first wave of places.

Ben Bradshaw: To mark the 30th World AIDS Day on Saturday, will the Government commit to a more ambitious, but completely achievable, target of ending all new HIV infections by 2030?

Matthew Hancock: I join the right hon. Gentleman in celebrating World Aids Day and ensuring that we redouble our commitment to making sure that we do everything we can. I will certainly look into the precise commitment that he asks for to make sure not only that it is deliverable but that we work not just here but around the world to end this scourge.

Kevin Hollinrake: Everyone in this place has lost someone close to them to the terrible and terrifying disease that is cancer. How will the NHS 10-year plan help to improve detection rates?

Steve Brine: The Prime Minister will set out our ambition that three quarters of all cancers will be diagnosed early, up from just half today. Our cancer survival figures are our best ever, but we do not have world-class outcomes yet, as we must and want to. That is why early diagnosis will be absolutely at the heart of the NHS long-term plan—for instance, in radically overhauling the screening programmes that the Secretary of State mentioned earlier.

John Bercow: I do slightly worry about the staying power of some colleagues. I will not say who, because it would be unkind, but there was a Member I was about to call who has beetled out of the Chamber. People have got to be a bit patient.

Emma Lewell-Buck: South Tyneside District Hospital recently surpassed targets for waiting times, yet this Government’s forced cuts under the guise of sustainability and transformation plans have left my constituents fundraising to fight the downgrading of key services in court next month. Why is the Secretary of State presiding over this destruction by stealth of our high-performing hospital and the NHS?

Matthew Hancock: Of course, the STP proposals have to be clinically led and consulted on and discussed with local people. It is right that the allocation of services and exactly how they are configured locally is led locally, so that we can get the best services to people in Tyneside and across the country.

Tom Pursglove: In England, over 80,000 people have a stroke each year and about 20% of them die within a year. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me, the House and my constituents in Corby and East Northamptonshire that he not only wants to drive down that figure but has a plan to do so?

Steve Brine: Yes, I can. I feel very passionately about stroke and the impact that it has on people’s lives and the health service. We are working very closely with the Stroke Association to develop the new national plan for stroke in England as part of the long-term plan. That plan will build on the success of the Department’s stroke strategy, which ended last month, and look at how we can improve stroke care across the pathway. It will also, critically, include prevention so that we can protect more people from stroke in the first place.

Stephanie Peacock: Despite the Government’s reassurances on the new NHS pay deal, it has left one of my constituents actually taking less money home at the end of the month and being required to pay money back. When I wrote to the Department, the Minister had the audacity to simply respond with a generic factsheet. Does he think this acceptable, and if not, will he give a meaningful reply to my constituent, who has done 30 years in the NHS?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course. We value everybody who works in the NHS. I would love the hon. Lady to take up this individual case with me directly, and I am very happy to look into it.

Andrea Jenkyns: I have recently been contacted by a constituent who works as a paediatrician in a nearby hospital. Last Friday, tragically, a baby died in their ward. The cause of death is unknown. Owing to the lack of a coroner service at the weekend, the baby had to stay for three nights with breathing tubes fixed in. For the parents, these are the last memories of their child. What steps will the Minister be taking to guarantee that the seven days NHS requirement also applies to coroners and histopathologists?

Matthew Hancock: My heart goes out to the parents of this child, my hon. Friend’s constituents, as I am sure it does from everybody in this House. Of course I will happily take up this individual case. But she raises the broader point, too. I am meeting the Justice Secretary on this topic to discuss what further we can do. It is technically a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but I understand entirely why we need to work together to make progress.

John Woodcock: Is not the Secretary of State alarmed that fake psychiatrist Zholia Alemi was revalidated in 2013 under the supposedly strengthened revalidation process? Why did the Government not act on the findings of the Sir Keith Pearson report in January last year, which pointed out this exact weakness in the system?

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman raised that matter with me last week. He knows that the Government take it very seriously and that we are asking the General Medical Council for an immediate review of that case, but I am happy to meet him to discuss it further.

Robert Courts: I welcome the new early diagnosis ambition for cancer, but does the Minister agree that for the people of West Oxfordshire, this is about delivery and having the people available to implement the strategy that he has worked so hard to produce?

Steve Brine: My hon. Friend is spot on, as always. Just last week, I spent time with the heads of all 19 cancer alliances in England, which are doing so much to deliver the strategy on the ground, including his Thames Valley cancer alliance, led by Bruno Holthof of Churchill Hospital in Oxford. The alliance was clear that we need more people across the board in “team cancer”, as I call it, and that is right. We especially need more radiographers, and we are working through that with Health Education England in the beyond 2021 plan.

Ruth George: Today’s report on the amount of police time spent dealing with emergency mental health cases without support from mental health professionals is echoed by police in my constituency, who say that it takes up almost 40% of their time. Will the Government recognise that this crisis should not be dealt with police officers, far less in cells, and sort it out?

Jackie Doyle-Price: First, I pay tribute to the work that the police do in dealing with people who are in mental health crisis. They view it as part of their core work, but clearly they should not be picking up the slack where services do not exist. I am working closely with the police service and other interested parties to ensure that we have sufficient crisis care, to enable the police to discharge their responsibilities adequately and in a safe way. We will continue to do that.

Kevin Foster: My constituent Alice Sloman died during what should have been a routine MRI scan, following complications with the general anaesthetic that had been administered to her. Will the Minister agree to meet me and Alice’s parents to discuss the possibility of people, particularly those with existing conditions, having routine heart checks before such procedures?

Stephen Hammond: The Government express sincere condolences to my hon. Friend’s constituents. I would of course be happy to meet him and his constituents.

Luke Pollard: Will the Minister support Plymouth’s Peninsula Dental School in training more dentists and encourage use of the underspend in the south-west dental spending pool?

Steve Brine: Yes. I would be interested to hear more about anything that can increase access to dentistry in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world.

James Cartlidge: Next year marks 10 years since the passing of the Autism Act. What more can the Government do to support people who suffer from autism?

Caroline Dinenage: To mark the fact that it will be 10 years since the Autism Act was passed, we will start a formal review of that piece of legislation and the autism strategy, to ensure that they remain fit for purpose and heading in the right direction.[Official Report, 29 November 2018, Vol. 650, c. 4MC.]

Hannah Bardell: My constituents Kirsteen and Wilma Ord have had their lives blighted by the Primodos hormone pregnancy drug. The review that the Government undertook was a whitewash, and now the further review, led by Baroness Cumberlege, will focus only on people in England. She has said that she will consult groups in Scotland, but drug regulation is reserved. What will the Minister do to promise that my constituents will not be let down again?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I met Baroness Cumberlege just last week, and I know she would be open to hearing representations from constituents in Scotland, to add to her understanding of this issue. We are determined to make full use of that review, so that we can learn lessons from this tragedy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I am sorry, but we must now move on.

UKRAINE-RUSSIA RELATIONS

John Whittingdale: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Russian action in the sea of Azov and the subsequent declaration of martial law in parts of Ukraine.

Alistair Burt: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated yesterday, we condemn Russia’s aggression against the Ukrainian vessels that sought to enter the sea of Azov on 25 November. We remain deeply concerned about the welfare of the Ukrainian sailors detained by Russia and call for their release urgently. Russia has again shown its willingness to violate Ukraine’s sovereignty, following the illegal annexation of Crimea and the construction of the Kerch bridge.
The United Kingdom remains committed to upholding the rules-based international system, which Russia continues to flout. Our position is clear: Russia’s actions are not in conformity with the United Nations convention on the law of the sea or the 2003 Russia-Ukraine bilateral agreement, which provides free passage in the sea of Azov, including for military ships. The United Kingdom ambassador reiterated that position at emergency meetings held yesterday at NATO, the European Union, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the UN Security Council.
In response to Russian aggression, the Ukrainian Parliament agreed to impose martial law in 10 Ukrainian regions for 30 days, commencing at 09:00 local time on 28 November. We welcome President Poroshenko’s reassurances that martial law will not be used to restrict the rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens, and that full mobilisation will be considered only in the case of further Russian aggression. We also welcome the Ukrainian Parliament’s resolution confirming that presidential elections will go ahead on 31 March 2019.

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this represents a serious escalation of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which has already led to over 10,000 deaths in Donbass since 2014? Will he recognise that we, as signatories of the Budapest memorandum, have a special responsibility? May I therefore welcome the support we are already giving, including the announcement by the Defence Secretary, following his own visit to Donbass very recently, that we will be deploying HMS Echo to the Black sea in 2019?
May I also welcome the Minister’s statement that what Russia has done is a clear breach of international law? Will he now specifically seek to find opportunities for the Prime Minister to discuss this with President Poroshenko? Will he reiterate his call for the immediate release of the 23 sailors now being held by the Russians, some of whom we understand are now in Simferopol in occupied Crimea and six of whom are badly wounded?
Will the Minister also look at imposing personal sanctions on the military personnel who have already been shown to be involved in co-ordinating this operation, as well as at increasing the economic sanctions on Russia, at least to the level that Canada and the United States are already imposing?

Alistair Burt: Again, I thank my right hon. Friend. Yes, he refers to a serious escalation that the recent incidents have illustrated, and the UK Government absolutely agree with him on that. I am pleased that he mentioned the recent visit of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary. On other proposals, we have no plans to change our conduct of activity in the area.
My right hon. Friend asked whether this is a breach of international law. The United Kingdom’s assessment is that, under the UN convention on the law of the sea, states can require any warship not in compliance with the laws and regulations of the coastal state to leave immediately. However, Russia’s actions in ramming, boarding and seizing vessels do not conform with the law of the sea. Russia’s actions were disproportionate, particularly as the ships had left the area and were returning to the Black sea. The 2003 sea of Azov bilateral treaty between Ukraine and Russia provides for the free passage of the military and civilian vessels of both states through the Kerch strait and in the sea of Azov, so my right hon. Friend is right to suggest that this is a breach of international law. I know the Prime Minister has today received a request to speak to the Ukrainian Prime Minister and that, in her busy timetable, she will be giving that urgent consideration.
On sanctions, measures have been taken in the past in relation to previous activity by Russia and sanctions were recently considered in relation to both the Crimea annexation and of course the building of the Kerch bridge. Any further sanctions will be considered in co-operation with European partners and others. It is very important that there is a sense of unity in response to what has taken place. The United Kingdom was active in calling a meeting of EU partners yesterday, and the other meetings that took place also saw a very strong response from the United Kingdom and others.
The House is right to see this as a serious matter, and it is important that it is not escalated further. That is why we have indeed called for the immediate release of the sailors, and we ask that all parties act with restraint but certainly recognise where the act of aggression came from in the first place.

Khalid Mahmood: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I also thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) for securing it. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), sends her apologies for not being here to respond, but she is attending the annual lunch of the Labour Friends of Israel.
The events of the past 48 hours have been deeply troubling for all of us who want to see a return to peace, stability and the rule of law across the whole of Ukraine. Instead, incidents such as this make an already intense situation worse and risk widening the conflict. As the NATO spokesman said yesterday, we need to see calm and restraint on both sides and we need both sides to commit to de-escalation. In particular, Russia must abide by international law, as the Minister just stated, which means allowing Ukrainian ships unhindered access to Ukrainian ports on the sea of Azov. There is no excuse for blocking that access, let alone firing on the ships and seizing them. Will the Minister confirm whether he or his colleague will speak to their Russian counterparts and make clear when that discussion will take place?
At the same time, it has been worrying to see the reaction of the Ukrainian Government in declaring martial law. The Minister has said that he has secured agreement from the President that that will not lead to a cessation of any elections that are due to take place in the new year. While these issues are going on, proper democratic structures need to continue robustly to entrench Ukraine on the democratic footing from which we want it to move forward.
The Minister will agree that if the elections do not take place, that will be a backward step—not just for democracy, but for peace, stability and the rule of law, which we want to see across the whole of the region.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his recognition that the Government’s basic position on international law and our response to this are correct. This recent action has come on the back of further disruption over a lengthy period. Since May 2018, Russia has conducted more than 200 stop-and-search boarding operations of civilian vessels transiting to or from the Ukrainian industrial ports of Mariupol and Berdyansk. The regularity of these boardings has increased over the summer, with Russian border guards deliberately delaying merchant vessels transiting the Kerch straits, and this activity culminated in what we saw the other day. It is important for there to be a strong and united international action.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned what he called a “worrying” response from Ukraine; I am not sure I would necessarily say that. In response to aggression from Russia, the Ukrainian Parliament has taken its own decision to impose martial law in 10 Ukrainian regions for 30 days. Bearing in mind the pressure that Ukraine is under, I should have thought that the position of this House would be strongly to support Ukrainian responses in situations of difficulty.
The United Kingdom did not secure President Poroshenko’s reassurance that martial law would not be used to restrict rights and freedoms—that decision was made absolutely by Ukrainian authorities; we did not need to secure it. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Ukrainian President also made the decision that elections would be unaffected on 31 March, so continued progress in relation to the democratic principles may continue.
We support the action that Ukraine has had to take in relation to this aggression, and our concern about Russia’s international position is clear, which is why we welcome the calls for de-escalation so that these matters do not get worse.

Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) on securing the urgent question, and—not that you need it from me—I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on seeing that this is a very urgent matter that needs to be dealt with.
We are now dealing with a country, in Russia, that is a pariah state. It occupies large sections of Ukraine illegally, and the very fact that it illegally occupies Crimea means that it has no rights under international law as regards this channel or any interventions to shipping that it has been making, notwithstanding the violent intervention made recently.
May I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister and Her Majesty’s Government to make a very big deal of this internationally at the UN, and as loudly as they possibly can? Will they say that this now means that we must have the highest level of sanctions and interventions because this country, which has intervened in Syria and in almost every other area of the conflict in the middle east and now in Ukraine, has to be brought to book—and that we have to do it now?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. I reiterate that we strongly condemn Russia’s act of aggression against Ukrainian vessels entering the sea of Azov. As he said, that act of aggression is a further example of Russia’s ongoing violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, following its illegal annexation of Crimea and illegal construction of the Kerch bridge earlier this year.
We remain clear in our support of the rules-based international system, which Russia continues to flout. Russia must not be allowed to establish new realities on the ground. We expect all parties to act with restraint and Russia to de-escalate the situation immediately, and we are indeed discussing with partners what concrete measures we can collectively take in response to Russia’s actions.
The EU has recently strengthened sanctions related to Crimea by listing individuals and entities responsible for the construction of the Kerch bridge, which connects Russia with illegally annexed Crimea. By acting in unity with our allies and partners, in the UN and the EU, we can achieve much.

Stephen Gethins: I, too, thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) for securing this urgent question. First, let me be clear that we in the Scottish National party absolutely condemn the aggressive actions of Russia and its clear violation of international law. We join the Minister in calling for the release of sailors and others involved as soon as possible. May I also take this opportunity to commend the work of Ambassador Judith Gough and all her colleagues, as she does fantastic work in Kiev?
We know that Ukraine is aware that we are stronger because of respect for human rights, the rule of law and the right of opposition to question Governments. That is something Russia fails to understand—not just in Ukraine, but in the Russian Federation. Will the Minister set out what work is being done with European partners, given our relationship and how important Ukraine is to EU security? Will he set out what his co-operation is with EU partners? Will he also set out more details on how he is looking at individual sanctions, which have been mentioned?

Alistair Burt: I am very grateful for such a clear statement from colleagues on the other side of the House—in particular, the condemnation of Russia’s actions and the unequivocal call for the urgent release of the sailors. We welcome that. I thank the hon. Gentleman also for the support he gives to our ambassadors, not only in the region but at the UN, where Jonathan Allen made a particularly strong statement at the Security Council on this matter yesterday.
On the hon. Gentleman’s questions, the EU Political and Security Committee is meeting today to consider the EU’s practical response. As I said earlier, we are  discussing with partners what concrete measures we can collectively take in response to Russia’s actions. He can be in no doubt, because of the clear statement by the Foreign Secretary yesterday and clear statements made by ambassadors, that we will continue to do exactly what it takes to try to de-escalate the situation but make clear where we believe the fault lies.

Thomas Tugendhat: May I, again, thank you for giving adequate time to this urgent matter, Mr Speaker? This is not the first time we have found ourselves discussing Russia’s pariah nature in this House, nor is it the first time we have seen Russia committing acts of aggression—or, indeed, warlike acts—against countries in the region. We have even debated its warlike acts in our own country. So this is a matter not about a foreign nation about which we know little, but about ourselves and our own security.
Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that every time we see one of these acts, we see a moment of Russian weakness being expressed through violence, we see a falling oil price being covered up by an act of aggression, and we see riots about the pensioners who have been stripped of their assets by this brutal regime being covered up by further acts of war? Does this not mean that we must stand with the Russian people? We must stand with the democrats, the journalists and the civic activists in Russia, and defend their interests. By doing so, we stand against those who seek to profit off them—not only the warmongers, but those in our own House, even, who are profiting from Russian business in this country and in the United States.

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee makes a series of strong and clear points. He sets out again the concerns the UK shares about a series of actions that has also caused concern abroad. He also made the wider point about the impact of actions on the people of Russia. I should add that Ambassador Jonathan Allen concluded his statement on Ukraine yesterday by saying:
“As my Prime Minister recently made clear, like others here today we remain open to a different relationship with Russia: one where Russia desists from these attacks that undermine international treaties and international security and desists from actions which undermine the territorial integrity of its neighbours and instead acts together with the international community to fulfil the common responsibilities we share as Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council. And we hope that the Russian state chooses to take this path.”
He sets out clearly why that should be the case, and why a different relationship is open to Russia, but it must entail a change in behaviour.

Madeleine Moon: I welcome the Minister’s statement. I particularly welcome the description of the ongoing and consistent provocative actions. This has not been an isolated incident; this has been happening and escalating for some time. I endorse the call for unity, calm and restraint, but we must be aware that Russia is seeking other consequences: a wider destabilisation of the region. It is important that we in this House and across the NATO alliance are unified in calling not only for freedom of navigation, and for the release of the ships and the sailors, but for Russia to understand that actions have consequences. We need to be willing to stand by those consequences.

John Bercow: I think the question was a rhetorical one, and therefore it requires an even shorter reply than the Minister might otherwise be inclined to offer to the House.

Alistair Burt: I will offer a very brief answer, but first, let me say that I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that the hon. Lady is the new president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. We all congratulate her on that. It is a singular honour for not only her, but this House, and we know that she will conduct herself extremely well. The way in which she put her question and the issues that she raised demonstrated that she has a very clear grasp of the facts, and she will be an important addition in that role.

Michael Fallon: Will Ministers look again at what further practical assistance we can give to Ukraine, either by increasing our military training or, given Russia’s interference with maritime trade in the sea of Azov, by helping to strengthen vulnerable ports such as Mariupol by, for example, improving the railway links? That will make it less vulnerable to Russian pressure.

Alistair Burt: As luck would have it, I have some information here about the UK’s support to Ukraine, and I fully support my right hon. Friend’s comments. The UK is providing some £30 million this year to Ukraine to support a range of areas, including governance reform, accountability, communications and human rights. The UK is also providing £14 million in relation to conflict, security and stability projects to bolster Ukrainian defence reform. We have provided up to £3 million of new funding this year for developing independent media and countering Russian disinformation, alongside £2 million provided through existing projects. The Defence Secretary was there recently, as my right hon. Friend will know, and he is having further talks with his US counterpart this weekend. On practical support for Ukraine, including on the defence side, the UK will certainly continue to be committed to Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Defensive non-escalatory military training delivered through Operation Orbital is fundamental to that support.

John Woodcock: President Putin’s actions have redrawn, by force, the borders of a European nation for the first time since the second world war, and we must never forget or normalise that. We are discussing just the latest in a series of acts of aggression, so will the Government commit to ensuring that they will do everything they can, and to ensuring that their influence on other European nations will not be lessened when—if—the UK comes out of the EU next year?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman, who has great knowledge of these matters, puts it extremely well. He references the latest in a pattern of acts of aggression, and welcomes the UK’s support in responding to it, in co-ordination with others. He can take it from me—I say this very clearly—that there will be no diminution in our support and our working with European partners, no matter what happens in relation to other events  next year.

Andrew Murrison: In 2015, following a great deal of international pressure, France cancelled two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships that were destined for Russia because of the situation in Ukraine. What more will be done at the European Union Political and Security Committee, to which the Minister referred, to impress on our European partners in particular that it is wholly unacceptable at this time to be engaging with the Russian Federation on arms sales?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his description of what happened. He emphasises how important it is for united and collective action to be taken on this issue. It is important that nations work together on this, and his comments about dealing with the sort of supply that was involved with Mistral are well taken. The United Kingdom will be pressing this point to the various committees that we are attending as we speak.

Steve Pound: The Foreign Secretary made an extremely powerful and well received speech yesterday at the launch of the holodomor exhibition, sponsored by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), in which he referred to the close, supportive relationship between the United Kingdom and Ukraine. In that context, will the Minister agree to send on behalf of the House our profound sympathy and support to the friends and families of all the sailors who have been injured and imprisoned illegally? What assistance can we offer in the elections in March to support the restraint shown by President Poroshenko?

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the Foreign Secretary’s appearance at the holodomor event; it matters greatly to the United Kingdom and the Foreign Secretary, which is why he was there. The hon. Gentleman’s message of support to the families caught up not only in this detention but in others is well made, and it will certainly be conveyed to them. On support for governance, we are already providing £11 million to support reform in Ukraine through the good governance fund, and there are a wide range of programmes to help Ukraine drive forward governance, economic and political reform, and promote greater accountability and transparency. All that will help to make sure that the election process is exactly what this House would expect.

Theresa Villiers: Sadly, Ukraine suffered hugely at the hands of the Russian and Soviet authorities in the last century, including through the unspeakable cruelty of the holodomor. Does my right hon. Friend share my sense of sadness that in the modern era, when we really all should know better, Ukraine is again on the end of unjustified violence and aggression from Russia?

Alistair Burt: My right hon. Friend’s concerns are echoed throughout the House. The support for Ukraine in its present difficulties is well expressed both by Members and the actions of Her Majesty’s Government.

Jamie Stone: For six months, Russia has been stopping and inspecting vessels entering and leaving Ukrainian ports in the sea of Azov. That leads to delays and greatly  increased costs, and it affects not only Ukrainian vessels, but those flying EU flags. Will Her Majesty’s Government first make the strongest representations to Russia that it should desist from this practice, and secondly seek legal advice on what financial recompense the owners of these ships can seek?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. On the economic damage, we estimate at present that Mariupol and Berdiansk have seen economic throughput reduce in their ports by some 43% and 30% respectively in the past nine months, so the actions that he referred to have had a profound effect. I am not personally aware of the legal position on redress, but I am sure that the United Kingdom Government will do anything that they can to provide support.

James Gray: HMS Echo is due to be deployed to the Black sea in the new year in support of Ukraine. She is a lightly armed oceanographic survey vessel. Would not it be a strong message to Russia if we were to bring that deployment forward, and perhaps also, without any form of escalation, consider deploying her to the Azov sea?

Alistair Burt: I am not aware of any plans to change any of the deployments that have been planned and considered. Of course, while we must continue to do exactly what we have said we will, no one is looking for any escalation in these circumstances.

Jim Shannon: Ukraine-Russia relations have deteriorated to an all-time low. There have been evidential reports of the persecution of Christians in eastern Ukraine, occupied by Russia. Pastors of churches have gone missing and nobody knows their whereabouts, and churches have been desecrated and destroyed. I ask the Minister gently: has he had the opportunity to highlight and raise these issues with Russia, and to confirm support for Ukrainian citizens expressing their faith and worshipping their God in the way they wish to?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question; no one could be a more determined supporter not only of the rights of Christians in other countries, but of freedom of belief and religion for all, which he champions. The United Kingdom believes that Russia must uphold its obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law, and we call on Russia to release immediately over 70 political prisoners detained in Russia and Crimea. I will ensure that his comments about minority faith prisoners and detainees are conveyed to the Minister responsible.

Desmond Swayne: Who benefits?

Alistair Burt: No one benefits from actions that are contrary to international law. No one benefits from disruption. The only people who benefit are those  who can demonstrate a clear and concise response to such aggression in an effort to return the world to a rules-based system, where there will be de-escalation, and collective security for all because it is not provoked by unreasonable actions.

John Bercow: I hope that the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) will have his question framed, but I give him due warning: if he does not, I will.

Stewart McDonald: To follow the point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), would it not be better to revisit that deployment—not necessarily its time or place, but the type of ship that we send? HMS Echo is a survey ship. Would it not be better to send a ship that can defend itself in these waters, given the events at the weekend? Do those events not also show that it is time for Her Majesty’s Government to have a more muscular and robust policy on Nord Stream 2?

Alistair Burt: The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is sitting next to me, assures me that the survey ship HMS Echo has appropriate armament, but we have to be very careful. I make it clear that there is no change planned to any deployments at this stage, which is important, and I have no instructions on any such action, but it would have to be considered extremely carefully. What the United Kingdom wants to do is stand up for international law, urge others to do the same, see a release of the sailors who have been detained, make it very clear to Russia what it is doing by risking the actions that it is taking and, while not seeking to escalate anything further, be very firm in supporting an international response, because we must see an end to these actions.

Mary Robinson: There is real concern that the escalation of Russian action in Crimea will lead to real human suffering, and much more of it. What more can be done to ensure access to Crimea for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, so that they can look into this?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend is right: we are very keen for that access to be given, and it is unfortunate that it has not been. Colleagues at the United Nations mission in New York will certainly continue to make this point very strongly.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: More than two years have elapsed since Ukraine referred the issue of access to the sea of Azov to the International Court of Arbitration at The Hague. Why does the Minister think that the process has taken so long, and what can he do to try to speed that up to a conclusion?

Alistair Burt: As a former lawyer, I have only a possible explanation of why some of these things—particularly, technical actions in respect of the law of the sea, where claim, counter-claim and many other things need to be discussed—take so long. I have no specific information about why this in particular has taken so long, but the Minister for Europe and the Americas will respond to that by letter. If these claims cannot be decided and international arbitration does not work, the international rules-based order falls to the ground, so it is to the benefit of all states—even those who feel that a resolution might not be to their advantage—to do everything in their power to see these matters resolved.

Bob Seely: The Minister has eloquently told us what the FCO thinks the situation is. Will he explain what the FCO thinks the situation may become? Is what has happened recently just a continuation of low-level aggression? Is it a ramping up of economic warfare by a blockade of Berdiansk and Mariupol? Or is it part of a shaping operation for a more violent assault on Mariupol? If it is one of the last two, what contingency measures is the FCO thinking of taking?

Alistair Burt: I know that my hon. Friend has a deep-rooted knowledge of this subject, but he asks the UK Government to speculate on a series of potential outcomes, which I do not think would be wise. The point of his question, however, is to illustrate that from the actions already taken there could be further more serious consequences. Given the concern with which he asked his question—concern that I am sure is echoed by the House—I should be very clear that the UK does not want further escalation. Risks have been taken in the actions we have seen, and it is essential, if those risks are to be de-escalated, that Russia recognises its actions and the concern they have caused, and changes them.

Carol Monaghan: We know that Russia has been flexing its muscles across the Black sea region for quite a while now, so it was disappointing that the Black sea was not a specific agenda item at the NATO summit in Brussels in July. Can the Minister assure the House that he is pushing NATO allies, including Turkey, which has in the past shown sympathy for Russia, to develop a coherent NATO strategy for the Black sea?

Alistair Burt: As I indicated earlier, there were meetings yesterday of the UN Security Council, NATO, EU and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. I cannot give a clear answer, because I do not know the technical answer, but given the current level of aggression in the Black sea and the degree of concern raised, and given that the international community responded so quickly yesterday, I suspect that the Black sea is very much a topic of concern. It certainly is for the UK, and it will indeed be pressed.

Leo Docherty: What are we doing to keep open the Kerch strait?

Alistair Burt: As far as I am aware, the strait is open, but it will be essential to demonstrate that there is free passage without hindrance, and in the near future all actions will be carefully scrutinised. There are ways of ensuring a good international presence and that sea lanes stay open, but any action must be taken collectively. My hon. Friend’s point was well made.

Stephen Kinnock: The Minister has done an excellent job, as always, of answering our questions, but this does smack a little of complacency. Let us remember that 10,000 people have died in the Ukraine conflict, and that Ukraine has been crying out since 2014, since the annexation of Crimea, for us to do something about the sea of Azov. Its economy is being strangled by the economic blockade. What measures are being taken to support the Ukrainian economy? It is very welcome that the House passed the Magnitsky  amendment, but what steps have been taken, if any, to follow up on that amendment, to draw up a list of individuals who should be sanctioned, and to put the amendment into practice? To date, we have little or no evidence of the Government doing anything about that.

Alistair Burt: In all fairness, the fact that I answer carefully and honestly in relation to these actions must not be considered any form of complacency. I am keen to set out for the record the action the UK has already taken in response to this incident: our convening of the EU meeting, the meetings at the UN, NATO and the OSCE, the clear statement by the Foreign Secretary yesterday, the statement by Jonathan Allen at the UN Security Council, and the work already done on sanctions, including the sanctions on individuals, and the sanctions following the annexation of Crimea and the construction of the Kerch bridge. In addition, the EU’s Political and Security Committee is meeting today, and further action is being considered in company with others. All that is a clear and definitive response to what has happened. Action has been taken against individuals, and further action can be considered, but the point I was making was that collective action was the most important thing. The international condemnation is clear. There is no complacency in anything I have said.

Helen Whately: This latest act of aggression is yet another reminder that Russia does not care about rules, only realpolitik. That fact must inform the UK’s approach. Will my right hon. Friend say more about the steps we are taking together with our allies to make sure that Russia is practically deterred from further action?

Alistair Burt: I hope that the actions the UK has taken quickly, in convening meetings of states and speaking very clearly at the UN Security Council yesterday—I commend to the House the statement by our deputy permanent representative Jonathan Allen yesterday, and I will make sure that a copy is placed in the Library so that colleagues can see it—made clear our concerns, and how we are using our international position and our position on various bodies to bring other states together, because collective action is needed.

Chris Law: The Russian ambassador to the UN, Dmitry Polyanskiy, claims that Ukrainian ships “illegally crossed Russia’s border” and that the
“responsibility lies with those who gave the illegal order”.
This completely ignores the fact that the Kerch strait and the sea of Azov are shared territorial waters, as designated by a 2003 treaty. Will the Minister call on Russia, both directly and through the EU, to allow the backlogged civilian cargo ships to pass through the Kerch strait, as they are legally permitted to do?

Alistair Burt: We do not agree with the interpretation of the law of the sea offered yesterday at the UN Security Council. The deputy permanent representative said about the action and the use of military force:
“This further demonstrates Russia’s ongoing contempt for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and its contempt for the global rules-based international system which this organisation serves to uphold”.
The Government fully support that statement.

Andrew Bridgen: What representations were made to the Russians during their illegal construction of the Kerch bridge, the completion of which has allowed President Putin to tighten his grip on the whole region and precipitated this latest illegal act?

Alistair Burt: I do not have that information, as I was not in this position at the time, but I can make it very clear to the House, as I did earlier, that action was certainly taken subsequently by way of sanctions imposed on those responsible for the building of the illegal bridge. I have no knowledge of what representations were made at that time, simply because I was not there.

Nick Smith: I congratulate the Minister on his calm and measured tone. Does he know whether there will be any NATO vessels in attendance to provide mutual support to HMS Echo when it is in the Black sea in the new year?

Alistair Burt: I understand from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), that there are NATO vessels in the area, but I am not aware of any particular deployment to support HMS Echo. That would be a matter for further consideration.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: As the Minister is aware, I sit on the Council of Europe, which Russia is trying to get back into. Will he please ensure that serious consideration is given in the Council of Ministers, through our representative there, to only allowing the Russians back if they fulfil their national and international obligations and do not break them?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend’s intervention makes clear what the House wants to see. The House is not in conflict with the people of Russia, but as the deputy permanent representative made clear yesterday, actions taken by Russia make it difficult, if not impossible, to have the sort of relationships that are necessary and that my hon. Friend is looking for. The UK is open to that and urges Russia to respond to international concerns and to set out to our mutual advantage a new relationship with other states based clearly on a rules-based international system.

John Grogan: As well as the exhibition in the House, does the Minister agree that it is resonant that last weekend there were many commemorations of the holodomor across the UK, including in St Anne’s cathedral in Leeds, and that one lesson is that just as fearless independent journalism was needed in the 1930s from people such as Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge to expose the holodomor, so it is now needed to expose the fake news coming from the Kremlin?

Alistair Burt: As I mentioned earlier, we are supporting the provision of money for journalism that is based on the truth and counters disinformation, but the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the importance of investigative journalism are clear. We support the actions of correspondents who go to the most difficult areas of conflict at great personal risk, and we support campaigns designed to make sure that journalists are not targets.

Jonathan Djanogly: Incredibly, Russia still denies having a military presence in Ukraine, although we know that Russian troops and tanks are there in very significant numbers taking part in a war that is claiming some dozen Ukrainian lives every week. Now that we have seen this blatant, unacceptable and proven act of Russian aggression, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK will take firm action, including the provision of hard military support?

Alistair Burt: As I have reiterated throughout, it is essential that responses are co-ordinated and collective. The United Kingdom has made its position extremely clear at the United Nations, in collective meetings today and yesterday, and in the Foreign Secretary’s statement. We will work in concert with our partners in seeking to reverse these actions and achieve our objective, which is stability and mutual security in the region—mutual security that is based on respect for territorial integrity and a rules-based international system.

Martin Docherty: On the back of the Russian Federation’s illegal and immoral actions in Ukraine, the President of Ukraine is flirting with martial law. Once assumed, martial law powers are rarely given up willingly, and unconsolidated democracies that take them rarely survive. In that context, can the Minister assure the House that the links between the President of Ukraine and Vladimir Putin’s right-hand man, Viktor Medvedchuk, will be fully investigated and exposed, and that we, as a member of the European Union—while we still are—will fully push the rest of the European Union to get its act together and ensure that more solid sanctions are imposed on the Russian Federation?

Alistair Burt: As I mentioned earlier, the imposition of martial law by the Ukrainian Parliament was announced yesterday, and will come into effect tomorrow at 0900 hours. We welcome what the President said in relation to the limitation of those powers, and we are monitoring very carefully what the impact and effects may be.

Philip Hollobone: Sending an oceanographic survey ship sometime in 2019 does not exactly strike me as a robust response to Russian aggression against a friendly state. Russian ships and submarines go up and down the English channel unimpeded all the time. Can the Minister tell the House whether a NATO ship has ever gone under the newly constructed Kerch strait bridge, and when the next NATO vessel will visit the sea of Azov?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking such detailed questions. I do not have that information, but I will ensure that he is written to.

John Bercow: I hope that we will have a copy in the Library of the House.

Alistair Burt: A copy will be placed in the Library of the House at your request, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Thank you. It will be for the wider delectation of colleagues.

John Howell: May I urge my right hon. Friend not simply to ignore the Council of Europe when he considers European action? Will he support the work that I and others have been doing to prevent the readmission of Russia to that organisation?

Alistair Burt: As my hon. Friend will know, I do not ignore anything related to Europe—either the European Union or the Council of Europe. I welcome the collective action that we take through our friends, and will continue to do so. I value the Council of Europe, and my hon. Friend’s expression of support for it is well made.

Kevin Foster: rose—

Robert Courts: rose—

John Bercow: What a rich choice—I call Mr Kevin Foster.

Kevin Foster: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There was the usual contest for last!
The Minister will be aware of the many parallels with past situations. Vladimir Putin’s approach seems similar to the process of heating a frog in water: if he keeps pushing up the heat, it will not produce an instant reaction. Can the Minister reassure me that he is talking to other nations about what will happen if Putin continues to push down this power? We obviously do not want to see an escalation, but let us be clear that it is Russia that keeps escalating these situations.

Alistair Burt: I know from my experience in other parts of the international field that what my hon. Friend has said is correct. There is always concern if a state seeks to demonstrate its power through means that are questionable, or sometimes downright illegal. States will sometimes push the envelope. The risk is that at some stage there will be a miscalculation and a confrontation. The United Kingdom will do all in its power to prevent such a thing, but the risk is taken by others, and my hon. Friend’s point is well made.

Robert Courts: Persistent attempts to destabilise Ukraine’s economy are clearly unacceptable. What further practical assistance can we offer Ukraine?

Alistair Burt: As I illustrated earlier, there is direct support for economic reform in Ukraine and direct support to assist other reforms, including those relating to good governance and technical matters. Support is also being given in relation to information gathering and the need to combat disinformation. In all those respects the United Kingdom’s support is clear, as has been our response to these particular incidents. My hon. Friend may be assured that our concern will continue, and that further support will be made available to Ukraine as and when the United Kingdom judges it necessary.

MINIMUM SERVICE OBLIGATION  (HIGH STREET CASHPOINTS)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Huw Merriman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring a Bill to require banks to provide cash machines to be made available on designated streets; to enable local authorities to designate streets that require cash machines in towns of more than 5,000 residents; and for connected purposes.
While that may not roll off the tongue, at a time when 2.2 million people in the UK rely almost entirely on cash it is critical that people can gain access to their money easily and free of charge, particularly people on low incomes, older people and people in rural areas. However, figures show that since the beginning of the year, free cash machines have been closing at an unprecedented rate. That has alarmed consumer groups, the Federation of Small Businesses, and, as their support for the Bill demonstrates, Members of Parliament.
I was inspired to introduce the Bill by the experience of residents of Battle, in my constituency in East Sussex. That historic town was the scene of the battle of Hastings. In 1066, Norman invaders marched from the constituency port of Pevensey to give King Harold and his men six of the best. Nowadays, Battle residents are having to make a similarly lengthy journey if they merely wish to access, and spend, the cash in their bank accounts. That is largely due to the withdrawal from Battle’s High Street of the big four banks—with them went their cash machines. The last to go was NatWest.
I wrote to Royal Bank of Scotland, the owner of NatWest, asking it to retain the cash machine. It refused, pointing to the 24/7 provision of a machine outside another store. When that machine, the last 24/7 cashpoint in High Street, was lost this month, I asked RBS to reinstate its cash machine or move one up the road from an out-of-town petrol station. It refused. That demonstrates the need for the Government to take action and require the financial services industry to provide at least one 24/7 cash machine in the high street of every town in the United Kingdom with a population of at least 5,000. I make that suggestion in the hope that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will accept it as one of the key strands of the forthcoming review and remodelling of the high street that was announced in this year’s Budget.
It may help if I try to put my finger on the reason for the decline in cash machines, and hence the reason why intervention in the shape of the Bill is needed. Earlier this year, LINK, the UK’s largest cash machine network, announced that it would go ahead with plans to cut its interchange fee by 20% over the next five years. Hundreds of free ATMs have already closed as a result. The interchange fee is the amount that is paid every time a customer uses a free ATM, which funds the entire free-to-use ATM network.
The change was designed to reduce the number of machines in areas where there were too many, while retaining the geographical coverage of ATMs across the UK. That has failed. In 2018, analysis of LINK data showed that in the six months following LINK’s initial  announcement—from November 2017 to April 2018—the rate of cashpoint closures increased significantly. It went from about 50 a month in 2015 to 300 a month during that period. LINK’s own figures show that between January and June this year, 500 cashpoints closed every month.
In January 2018, the consumer group Which? conducted a study of ATM provision across the UK, and identified more than 200 communities with poor ATM provision or no cash machines at all. The survey also demonstrated the impact that a potential reduction in the number of free-to-use ATMs would have on the millions of consumers who use the network. Overall, it identified heavy consumer dependency on ATM usage: just under half those surveyed used a cashpoint at least once a week, while four out of five said that access to the free-to-use network was important to their daily lives and payment for goods and services. The removal of free-to-use access would leave one in 10 struggling to make payments, shutting many consumers out of local shops and services. A reduction would also lead to one in seven being deterred from using outlets that accept cash only, placing a strain on consumers and retailers alike.
The threat of ATM closures is particularly pertinent in the context of widespread bank branch closures across the country. Research shows that free ATMs are an important alternative for consumers trying to access their cash when their local branch closes, but latest figures show that bank branches are closing at a rate  of 60 a month, leaving people struggling to access the financial services they rely on across the UK.
The UK has lost almost two thirds of its bank branches in the past 30 years. According to parliamentary records, there were 20,583 branches in 1988, but analysis of current account providers shows that there are just 7,586 today. So far this year 670 branches have closed or are scheduled for closure, putting us on course to overtake the number of 2017 closures.
While there has been a decline in cash use, cash remains immensely popular and important for consumers. Almost three quarters of adults in the UK say they use cash at least two or three times a week.
Some might say that cash provision should be taken up by the post office network. I know that the Government recognise the important role post offices play by providing access to cash and banking services. Under the banking framework, 99% of UK personal banking customers and 95% of UK business banking customers can do their day-to-day banking at the post office. That agreement, in operation since January 2017, marked the biggest expansion of face-to-face banking access in a generation. However, post offices and postmasters and postmistresses do not feel that the banks are remunerating them properly for these transactions, and I fear that many will stop providing the service, just as LINK has ceased providing cash machines.
High street banks have a very special place in  my heart. I spent my vacations during A-levels and university working as a cashier for Abbey National in Buckinghamshire. I was responsible for the morning refill of the cash machine—a job they might not have given me if they had known I would become an MP. Many a happy hour was spent with my customers, from “accidentally on purpose” setting off the cashier security screens when a customer was rude to colleagues, to repeatedly asking our customer, Mr R. Head, to produce  his identification so that we could roll about on the floor laughing when his driving licence showed his first name to be Richard, to taking a phone call from an irate customer concerned about overdraft charges and then phoning the cheque centre with the opening line of “Some old bag is complaining about racking up charges” only to be informed by the voice at the other end of the line, “This is the old bag speaking. I suggest you reimburse the charges or I will have you fired.” I had rung the customer back by mistake—a schoolboy error.
Fortunately, my pursuit of customer satisfaction has improved steadily over the years prior to me becoming my constituency MP. When vulnerable constituents, who are the most in need of our support, cannot access their cash and spend it in support of the stores that make up our vibrant high streets then something is not only wrong, but something needs to be done. I therefore beg to move that this Bill becomes law.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Huw Merriman, Simon Hoare, Stephen Crabb, Kevin Hollinrake, Daniel Zeichner, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Frank Field, John Lamont, Henry Smith, Ian Paisley, Sammy Wilson and Louise Haigh present the Bill.
Huw Merriman accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019, and to be printed (Bill 297).

COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (JUDICIARY AND FUNCTIONS OF STAFF) BILL [LORDS]

Second Reading

David Gauke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a great pleasure to move the Second Reading motion. It is possible that in Westminster at the moment other matters are catching Members’ attention and that the focus of the House has not been sufficiently on the Bill. But I am delighted to have the opportunity to move the motion. The Bill has already been considered in the other place and takes an important step forward for our courts system.
Our judiciary, together with our courts and tribunal service, are rightly regarded as among the finest and most independent in the world. However, the way our courts and tribunals work cannot stand still. They must be able to meet the demands of delivering modern-day justice, meet the needs of the society they serve, and administer justice in the most effective and efficient way.
The justice system must work for all those who use it, as well as for the judges and legal professionals who work in it. That means realising the huge potential of new technology and the law tech revolution to improve people’s experience of and access to the justice system and open up new routes to justice. It is certainly my determination that the UK should be seen as being at the forefront of adopting new technology, whether in our courts and tribunal system, which is the issue before us today, or more widely, with legal professionals making use of technology. That is one of the reasons that we have instituted a law tech committee, led by Christina Blacklaws of the Law Society, which is designed to take us forward in that area. It is an important part of what we need to do.

John Howell: My right hon. Friend may be aware that I did an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship in the law with judges, and my experience of the different courts I went to showed the enormous gap between the commercial courts, which were technologically very superior, and the tribunal system, where we might as well have been using a quill pen. Is this going to solve that problem?

David Gauke: Our court reform programme as a whole, which I will come on to, will ensure that we use technology wherever possible. It is right that we embrace that. The Bill is part of the process—it is not all of the process—that will ensure that we modernise. I have quoted in the past ways in which artificial intelligence, for example, is being used within the legal profession. An example I have given is a case where AI was used to check a number of contracts to spot potential errors. The rate of success of the AI was somewhat better than that of the experienced lawyers, and if I remember rightly the task was done in 26 seconds rather than 92 minutes. I make that point to illustrate the opportunities that exist in terms of technology and the law.

Alex Chalk: Innovation and modernisation are vital, but will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to recognise that the single most  important strength of our judicial system is the judiciary who work in it and that everything must be done to ensure that we have a broad pipeline of talent so that they continue to be the best in the world?

David Gauke: I very much agree. We have a judicial system that is widely respected around the world for its independence and excellence, and that must long continue. I suspect that my hon. Friend is hinting at the question of how we can get more outstanding candidates to apply to the judiciary. It is right that we should address that challenge. He is right to suggest that this is one of our strengths as a country. It will be important in the years ahead as we leave the European Union that our legal system should continue to be widely respected. I believe that there are great opportunities for the UK to become even stronger as a legal centre, and I am keen for that to happen.

Bob Neill: Will the Secretary of State give way?

David Gauke: I will certainly give way to the Chair of the Justice Committee.

Bob Neill: The Secretary of State makes an important point about the balance that needs to be struck in these areas. He has given an example of the use of artificial intelligence being appropriate for the checking of documents, and work on dealing with disclosure parameters has already been successfully piloted by the Serious Fraud Office. Would he concede that there is a distinction to be drawn between those essentially transactional but important operations, such as disclosure searches, and the application of human judgment that should be brought to, for example, a charging decision by the SFO? Does he agree that any determination of the facts or issues of a case should clearly be done by a human judge, having heard the arguments, and that their workload could be slimmed down but not replaced by the use  of AI?

David Gauke: I agree. I note that my hon. Friends are all quick to make the case for the importance of the skilled human being in these circumstances, and rightly so. We must remember that technology is our servant and not our master.
I make these points because our court reform programme is being undertaken in the context of an embracive technology and the Bill is an aspect of that programme. I will digress no further because it is not essentially a technology-based Bill. However, to follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the importance of skilled individuals will continue to be key, and the Bill will ensure that the time of our most skilled individuals—our judges—is deployed as efficiently as possible.

Nigel Huddleston: I have to say that innovation and modernisation are not normally things that we associate with our courts. Given the feedback that has already come in on things such as making responses on juries online, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not only useful to the courts but makes life easier for the public?

David Gauke: Absolutely; that is a key point. Perhaps my hon. Friend has set my Department the challenge  of ensuring that people associate the modernisation of technology with the court system. We will know that we have succeeded when he tells us that that is the case. He makes the strong point that this is ultimately about delivering justice. We need to have strong support for the process involved and ensure the satisfaction of those who need to resolve a dispute or to undertake a process. The early signs from our work with online divorce processes are encouraging, and the feedback has been very positive.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I rise as the co-chair of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group. I am interested in what the Secretary of State is saying about artificial intelligence, but it seems to me that one of the driving forces behind the Bill is not necessarily to improve the administration of justice but to cut costs by pushing workloads down the grades so that staff will be taking on additional work above their current grade without additional remuneration. Surely he should recognise that making savings in the application of justice comes at a cost to staff and to the public’s experience of justice.

David Gauke: I do not think that the hon. Lady is correct in the association that she makes. The reality is that we have to ensure that our resources are deployed as efficiently as possible. That is to the benefit of the system as a whole. I will make the case in more detail as to why the steps taken in the Bill to give authorised staff greater responsibility to undertake some roles that they are currently unable to undertake will be to the benefit of the system as a whole. I make no apology for wanting to find efficiencies within the system, but this is in the context of a £1 billion court reform programme. Those efficiencies can improve the experience of the users of the system, and could also ensure that judges will be able to use their time in the areas that are most useful to them. Indeed, the experience of authorised Courts and Tribunals Service staff will be a more positive one, as they will be able to make a greater contribution to the efficient running of the court system.

Simon Hoare: Setting aside the whys and wherefores of the Bill, may I invite my right hon. Friend to confirm from the Dispatch Box that the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers between the judiciary and Parliament will be absolutely sacrosanct and at the heart of everything that he, his ministerial colleagues and the Department will do? This is an issue of great concern to many people, irrespective of the Bill, and people always need to have faith that this central pillar of how we are governed in this country will remain intact, protected and preserved.

David Gauke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to respond to that point. The independence of the judiciary is at the heart of our system and a long-standing part of it. It is as important, if not more important, than it has ever been that we reiterate that and support those institutions. As I was saying a moment ago, this is a big part of what our nation is about, and in the years ahead, after we have left the European Union, one of the most important  institutions to us will be our independent judiciary. It is a large part of what the UK is about and of how we should project ourselves around the rest of the world.

Jeremy Lefroy: My right hon. Friend is making a strong case. Perhaps this is for another time, but in the context of having a strong, independent judiciary, will he look again at the rather arbitrary cap of the age of 70 for magistrates? We have many really qualified people who wish to contribute to the independent justice system of this country but who are prevented from doing so simply because of their age.

David Gauke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, although he takes me away a little from the terms of the Bill. I realise that there is a debate about that matter, and there are arguments either way about the current age limit. I have certainly received representations calling for an increase on the current age of 70, and we continue to look closely at those arguments. I believe that there has to be an age limit, and it is a question of judgment as to what it should be. I would be delighted to discuss this with my hon. Friend in the Tea Room if the opportunity to do so should arise.

Alex Chalk: Building on the point that was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) about independence, may we have an assurance that under the Bill the procedure rule committees that decide what the authorised staff can do will be able to exercise that discretion free from any interference from the centre, so that they can ensure that only those jobs that ought properly to be delegated to those staff are so delegated, and that extraneous considerations such as cost need not be forced upon them when they make their decisions?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend brings me back to the Bill and makes a good point—one which came up on several occasions during the deliberations in the other place about the extent to which we should be prescriptive, or whether powers should be left with the rule committees. I share his instinct that as much as possible should be left to the rule committees, because they are best placed to make such assessments. Indeed, that leads to points made by distinguished retired judges in the other place about not being over-prescriptive. Such matters may be a point of discussion this afternoon or at the Bill’s later stages.
I now turn to the Bill in greater detail. The measures will help to provide the greater flexibility and responsiveness that we need within our court system. That includes freeing up judges’ time from the most routine tasks associated with court cases. The Bill will build on existing powers that already enable staff in most courts and tribunals to be authorised to exercise some of the functions of judges. It will continue to allow appropriately qualified and experienced staff in the civil, family and magistrates courts, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Court of Protection and tribunals to be authorised to carry out uncontroversial and straightforward judicial functions under judicial supervision. The Bill will enable those arrangements to be extended for the first time to the Crown court, where court officers can only currently undertake formal and administrative matters. Allowing court and tribunal staff to exercise a wider range of judicial functions will potentially free judges up from  undertaking more regular tasks, such as changing the start time of a hearing or changing a pre-trial preparation hearing date, so that they can focus on the more substantive matters of the case.

Edward Davey: I welcome the Government’s amendments in the other place to paragraphs 32 and 44 of the schedule, which were secured by my noble Friend Lord Marks, because they ensure that only a judge will have the power to deprive people of their liberty or eject them from their family home. As we give court staff some more powers, it is important that we set down some markers for the types of decisions that should be reserved for trained professional judges.

David Gauke: Indeed, and I will turn to that point in a moment. I hope that the clarification provided by those amendments will be widely welcomed in this House. The passage of this Bill in the other place was characterised by a constructive and co-operative approach from both sides, and I hope that that will continue to be the case—I suspect it will, but we shall see—because the point of those amendments was to provide particular protections. Other issues debated in the other place included suggestions about being more prescriptive. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), it is right that we use the judicially led rule committees in many of those areas, but the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) makes a perfectly fair point.

Luke Hall: My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. He is talking about the use of judicial time, so will he explain in a bit more detail how the measures will address the problem of the backlog of cases and what effect the Bill is likely to have on improving the current situation?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend raises a good point that comes back to how we ensure that judges’ time is used most effectively, freeing them up from the most routine tasks, such as changing the start time of the hearing, and enabling them to focus on more complex matters. They could then ensure that case preparation and management was resolved proportionately and at an appropriate level. That could also help to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the court tribunal system. There is an opportunity to ensure greater consistency in the current arrangements, and it is right that we strengthen safeguards, as has already been touched upon.
It is important to guarantee the independence of all authorised staff when they are exercising judicial functions. Clause 3 will bring authorised staff under the leadership of senior lawyers. Although we are removing the post of justices’ clerk from the statute, the functions that such clerks undertake will continue to be carried out by heads of legal operations, who have a much greater leadership role across all jurisdictions. The change will ensure that we make all authorised staff ultimately accountable and subject to the direction of the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals.

John Howell: My right hon. Friend is being generous with his time. The place where these changes can have the most effect is in the tribunal system. I have sat  through tribunals that have lasted for days for no good reason, tying up three independent assessors. Surely, it is there that the changes he proposes can have the biggest effect.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend may well be right. The Bill of course relates to courts and tribunals, and it is important to bear in mind the impact on tribunals. Tribunals perhaps do not always attract the attention that they might, but they play a vital role within our justice system. If we can find ways to improve their efficiency, we should all welcome that. That is a key part of what this Bill is about.

Kevin Hollinrake: My right hon. Friend mentioned the start times of hearings. As he will know, Northallerton magistrates court, which serves many of my constituents, is due to close under these reforms. It is important that people can get to a hearing on time, so will requiring people to travel further to a more distant court be taken into account? Will there be mitigation, such as video links, and will those things be in place and operating before the court closes?

David Gauke: Journey times are taken into account. I am conscious that substantial issues can arise in rural areas, but journey times are considered. As for technology, if I remember correctly, the change at Northallerton magistrates court is conditional upon ensuring that the technology is properly in place. In the context of this Bill, authorised staff will be able to play a bigger role in determining start times, for example, and one hopes that that might enable the process to run as smoothly as possible and ensure that people’s concerns about when they can get to court can be properly considered.

Bambos Charalambous: With the distance between courts being a factor not just for claimants and defendants but for witnesses, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that witnesses may sometimes choose not to go to a court if it is too far away, which can cause hearings to be cancelled?

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman takes me further in the direction of the debate about the court closure plan, but we need to ensure that our resources are deployed as efficiently and effectively as possible. In that context, we have reduced the number of courts, but that money makes a contribution to our overall finances and can be reinvested as part of the court reform programme. We have to take every opportunity to make use of new technology to ensure that the experience of the justice system—the hon. Gentleman rightly highlights that witnesses are important in many cases—is as positive as possible.
I have touched on this already, but safeguards are important. Clearly, the delegation of certain judicial powers to court and tribunal staff needs to be done sensitively and sensibly, and with appropriate safeguards. Independent, judiciary-led procedure rule committees, which govern the rules within courts and tribunals, will determine which functions court staff may exercise in each jurisdiction and what qualifications and experience they will need. Those rules will then be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. All staff authorised to exercise  judicial functions will ultimately be accountable to, and subject to, the direction of the Lord Chief Justice or the Senior President of Tribunals.
I am grateful for the valuable insight that Members of the other place brought to debating and scrutinising the measures in the Bill, particularly in relation to the exercise of judicial functions. Many of them drew on their own wealth of judicial experience and expertise in considering the practical issues of implementation.
Concerns were raised in the other place about the safeguards in delegating judicial functions to authorised staff. For example, concerns were raised that certain powers, particularly those that affect the rights and freedoms of citizens, should only ever be directly discharged by the judiciary. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton raised that point.
We have listened to those concerns, and we tabled amendments in the other place that will prevent specific judicial functions from being undertaken by authorised staff, including authorising a person’s committal to prison; in most cases, authorising a person’s arrest; granting certain injunctions; making orders for repossession of residential property, where the orders are contested; and making search orders.
We tabled amendments that will require the procedure rule committees, when making rules to allow authorised staff to exercise judicial functions, to consider whether the rules should include a right to judicial reconsideration of decisions made by such staff. The amendments will also require that, if a procedure rule committee decides against the creation of such a right, the committee will have to inform the Lord Chancellor of its decision and of the reasons for it. This will ensure much greater transparency and accountability.
The measures in the Bill strike the right balance between creating a framework for the delegation of judicial functions to authorised staff, with appropriate safeguards, and giving discretion to procedure rule committees and the senior judiciary to make the arrangements work in practice.

Alex Chalk: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principle of delegating functions to authorised staff is not, of itself, new? There has been a successful history, particularly in the magistrates courts, of delegating powers to justices’ clerks to carry out a number of functions, which even include such matters as issuing summonses or requesting pre-sentence reports. The principle is in place but, of course, the execution is vital.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is right, and his experience is a benefit to the House. He knows of what he speaks. This principle is not new, but it is one where we think we can go further, to the benefit of the courts and tribunals system and of the users of that system. He is absolutely right.
A balance needs to be struck on the safeguards, and we believe we have found the right balance. Indeed, the position was strongly supported in the other place by Lord Thomas, the former Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Neuberger, a former President of the Supreme Court, both of whom have a wealth of experience in this area, having chaired procedure rule committees. The combination of Lord Thomas, Lord Neuberger and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, very distinguished lawyers all, is one that should reassure the House.
Lord Thomas warned on Second Reading against putting too much detail into the Bill:
“Experience has shown that detailed restrictions on procedure are a very real fetter on the administration of justice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]
Similarly, Lord Neuberger warned in Committee of placing
“a potential straitjacket on the ability to appoint the appropriate people to make appropriate decisions.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 882.]
Lord Marks also warned against setting too high a bar on the qualifications of court and tribunal staff exercising judicial functions:
“It seems…that the purpose of this part of the legislation is to increase efficiency and…to everybody’s advantage…the speed of decision-making… Having a legislative requirement that all delegated decisions must be taken by qualified lawyers with a minimum experience requirement runs the risk of frustrating this objective.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 414.]
I make those points in anticipation that this may be an issue that we debate further this afternoon, but I think the case is persuasive.

Kevin Hollinrake: Will the Bill make it easier to set up a new tribunal? I speak in the context of my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance, which has the idea of setting up a financial services tribunal. We are not seeing a level playing field in our courts between banks and small businesses, and we feel such a tribunal may be a solution. Will the Bill make it easier to establish such a tribunal, or will it not have any relevance in that area?

David Gauke: As it stands, and I do not want to encourage my hon. Friend to table amendments, the Bill will not necessarily do that. He has taken a great interest in this issue, and he has been speaking to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) will pursue the matter with his customary tenacity, and I do not wish to discourage him from doing so, unless he considers that the best way to manifest it is by tabling amendments to the Bill, in which case I would urge him to look elsewhere. I thank him for his intervention.
I draw the House’s attention to additional important safeguards in the Bill. It will provide a guarantee of the independence of staff and their decision making, by applying the statutory independence and immunities that currently apply to justices’ clerks to all authorised staff when exercising judicial functions. A member of staff will be able to exercise judicial functions only once authorised to do so: by the Lord Chief Justice or his nominee, for the courts; or by the Senior President of Tribunals or his delegate, for the tribunals. The Bill includes protections for authorised persons from legal proceedings, costs in legal proceedings and indemnification in respect of anything they do or do not do when exercising judicial functions in good faith.
The Bill also includes measures to enable greater flexibility in the deployment of judges across our family and county courts, the first-tier tribunal and the upper tribunal. For example, it will permit recorders to sit in the upper tribunal, enable senior employment judges to sit in the first-tier tribunal and upper tribunal and  enable presidents of the employment tribunals for England, Wales and Scotland to sit in the employment appeal tribunal. This will make best use of the experience and skills of serving judges, and it will give the senior judiciary more flexibility to respond to sudden changes in demand and to manage case backlogs in particular jurisdictions. It will also allow judges to gain experience of different types of cases, which will help with career progression. The Bill also contains provisions relating to the amendment of judicial titles, which will ensure consistency and will help to avoid confusion for court users.
The measures in the Bill are an important part of our wider £1 billion reform programme, which will see our courts and tribunals modernised for the 21st century and our digital age. New online services are already providing new routes to justice for many. For example, of all applications for divorce from unrepresented citizens, more than six out of 10 are now made online, after the new service was launched in May. That amounts to more than 20,000 people in just over six months. It has saved time, cost and effort for them and the system. Reforms in the criminal justice system—from making pleas online for low-level offences, to the piloting of a new digital system to allow the police, Crown Prosecution Service, courts, judiciary and defence to have a single shared view of case information online—are making it work better for everyone, too.
The Bill is an important part of our wider reforms to make our justice system work better for those who use it and those who work in it. It also makes an important first step in the legislation that will underpin our reforms. We will introduce further courts legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. With the appropriate safeguards in place, the Bill will allow our judiciary, courts and tribunals to operate more flexibly, responsibility and efficiently, and it will ultimately improve people’s experience of justice and put our courts and tribunals on a sound footing for the future. I commend the Bill to the House.

Yasmin Qureshi: Before I open my speech, I wish to tell the House that today is Lancashire Day. On 27 November 1295, Lancashire sent its first Member of Parliament to attend King Edward I’s model Parliament. The day is well marked and celebrated in Lancashire.
We have been waiting for the arrival of court-reform legislation ever since the Government promised in the Queen’s Speech last June a Bill to modernise the court system. One can imagine that expectations were high, but instead we were left disappointed when this wafer-thin Bill, which is both narrowly constrained and obscurely drafted, was finally published. Indeed, most of its provisions were included in the Prisons and Courts Bill that was shelved more than a year ago. That Bill devoted 38 clauses and 13 schedules to the courts and judges, whereas this Bill has just three such clauses followed by a single schedule. As Lord Judge once said of another Government move, it is
“a little too late and…quite a lot too little”.

Bob Neill: I intervene only in fairness to the distinguished legal journalist Mr Joshua Rozenberg, for that was his phrase that the noble Lord Judge was quoting.

Yasmin Qureshi: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.
Rather conveniently, the Government have left out measures that would provide a legislative framework for the increased use of online technology in the courts—their justification for closing so many courts and axing so many court staff. Indeed, we know that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is working at pace on the introduction of online justice services: the civil money claims service was made available to the public in April 2018 and the online divorce-application procedure was rolled out nationally in May this year.
Although we would, of course, not seek to refute the fact that modern technology has undoubted benefits, we do have to ensure that it is used carefully and without generating more confusion or distress around the process. It should be about investing to improve our services; it should not be a smokescreen for cuts and closures. As such, it is only right that the effects of digitisation should be researched intensely and costed to ensure the best possible outcome. The Government have not yet confirmed that that has happened and still seem intent on this path, without considering potential concerns.
We are by no means against modernisation. We all want justice to be done in the most cost-effective manner and we all believe that the court system must meet the demands of the 21st century, but there is real concern that the Government are trying to bypass necessary legislative scrutiny in this policy area. We must see a thoroughly researched digitisation programme included in primary legislation, to ensure that written and online processes are undertaken appropriately.
The Bill is a missed opportunity. It should have included clear principles to guide the future of online court procedures and a modernisation programme that could have been fully debated in the House today. Instead, we are told that more legislation will eventually follow to encompass all that. This fragmentary approach—or what has been described by one legal commentator as a “legislative drip-feed”—is deeply unsatisfactory. In May 2018, the National Audit Office published a report that concluded that delays in the introduction of primary legislation have created a significant degree of uncertainty, and that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service “faces a daunting challenge” in delivering the technological and cultural change needed to modernise our courts and tribunals.
Since 2010, the Government have closed literally hundreds of courts and cut thousands of vital staff. Our research suggests that 80% of the courts sold so far have on average raised little more than the average UK house price. That causes concerns about long-term damage to access to justice for civil litigants and, indeed, victims of crime. It will also have an obvious and long-lasting effect on the principle of local justice. The cuts have led to an increase in the number of people forced to represent themselves, a problem further compounded by cuts to legal aid. When unrepresented members of the public turn up to seek justice as litigants in person, it increases costs and delays for everyone. As we have said in  the past, it is the most vulnerable who will bear the heaviest costs—young mothers who are unable to find  childcare, the elderly who find long journeys difficult, or the disabled. The court closures will prohibitively reduce access.
Will the Government pause their programme of court closures while new technologies and online courts are being tested and wait to see the full findings of their pilots to assess the impact of the changes to our courts system? Will the Lord Chancellor commit today to restarting the programme of court reforms only once the House has finally had an opportunity to fully scrutinise the plans in primary legislation? We have concerns about the Bill as it stands and will not be supporting it today, but we will table amendments in Committee.
As we heard from the Minister, clause 3 delegates judicial functions to authorised staff. This provision must be understood through the lens of a wider austerity agenda that seeks to make significant cuts. These cuts are being made through a process of court closures and through savings on judicial salaries. Other proposals include the relocation of many case-management functions, which, as we know, currently take place in court buildings, with the benefit of on-site judicial supervision.
Our concern is that decisions would move to new off-site service centres. There is an implication that, given that off-site nature, those service centres would be supervised by authorised staff, not judges. That is deeply problematic for us, not least because we would have scenarios in which authorised staff who were not subject to the training, experience, ethos and oaths that a member of the judiciary is, would be performing direct judicial functions while being employed directly by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.
The issue raises obvious questions about accountability and independence. It is also worth noting concerns that the people involved may be subject to administrative pressures that require the meeting of targets. Given the ideological cuts agenda driving this reform, it is vital that the Bill makes provision for safeguards to  protect the standard of decision making by authorised staff, to ensure that the quality of the judicial process and the experience of those who use the court are maintained.
Although we accept that there is some scope for freeing up judges by allowing the most straightforward decisions to be delegated to authorised staff, the intended future limits to any such delegation do not appear to be in the Bill. Instead, they are supposed to be decided by the procedure rule committee. That means that if the Bill passes in its current form, there may be limited external scrutiny of how widely judicial functions are being carried out by people who are not in fact judges, but who work for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.
I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor is aware of the serious implications for the rule of law and the independence of our judicial decision making. In his opening speech, he touched on the fact that our judicial legal system is considered to be one of the best in the world and is used by many countries, many companies, and many litigants; it makes up about £28 billion-worth of trade. Will that be affected by this downgrading of our judiciary? We believe that such a shift would not meet the expectations held by members of the public about the level of experience and the independence of those making judicial decisions about their rights. Unless limits are placed on those who can be authorised and on what powers can be given to those authorised persons, the Bill could change the very nature of our justice system.

David Gauke: The hon. Lady is right to raise the importance of our judiciary, but I hope that we can reach a consensus on that. Does she not recognise that the Bill has the support of the judiciary? Senior retired judges have spoken in support of it in the other place, and it has been welcomed by the senior judiciary.

Yasmin Qureshi: I accept that the senior judiciary, some of whom are in the House of Lords, have said that the Bill is a good thing. However, practising lawyers, barristers, solicitors, the Bar Council and the Law Society have said that it is not right, and that the amendments that we will propose should be considered.
There is disagreement in the judicial community about the Bill. [Interruption.] I will just wait until the Lord Chancellor has dealt with his question. The Lord Chancellor and the practitioners here must be aware that, when judges are involved in delegated functions or non-court sitting judgments, they are making judgments on difficult issues and complex matters of law—for example, a case management hearing, or even something such as asking for an adjournment. We do not know, but, at the moment, the Bill suggests that such work could be done by delegated staff.
When someone asks for an adjournment, all kinds of complications could be involved; there could be issues relating to failure of disclosure and so on. According to the Bill as it stands, many issues would be given to a delegated person. That is one reason why we are asking for clarification about who those people will be, what powers they will be given, and, more specifically, what training they will be given. Although some senior members of the judiciary in the other place have said that the Bill is a positive development, the practitioners on the ground, at the moment, do not agree.

Bob Neill: I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, and I am not unsympathetic to her point, but, in fairness to the senior judiciary, is it not worth pointing out what was said by the two noble lords who spoke on this matter? Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, the recently retired President of the Supreme Court, counselled that it would be unsatisfactory to reduce the flexibility of these proposals, pointing out that there will be many decisions where requisite experience is required, but others where less experience is necessary. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the previous Lord Chief Justice, pointed out that the procedure rule committee had practitioners on it who acted independently. He said:
“Experience has shown that detailed restrictions on procedures are a very real fetter on the administration of justice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]
Those are very serious counsels by two very distinguished recently retired judges.

Yasmin Qureshi: I have respect for the senior judiciary, of course, but Parliament should have control over what is being delegated. Taking away judges’ positions and powers is a matter that should be debated in this House. We do not think that it is a matter for the procedure rule committee. We would have a much better idea about what it should be looking at. I think that we will disagree on this issue.

Jess Phillips: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about always listening to eminent legal practitioners in the Lords? I am certain that, quite recently, they have made some mistakes.

Yasmin Qureshi: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Those things do occur.
Let me go back to my earlier point. We believe that limits should be placed on those who can be authorised and on what powers can be given to those authorised persons. The Bill will change the very nature of our judicial system. We want a system that requires transparent and public scrutiny of the scope of future delegated powers by those in this House. That is important and I am surprised that hon. Members who are democratically elected wish to take away that element from the Bill.
We on the Labour Benches are seeking to push for a number of safeguards, the first of which places limits on the delegation of these judicial powers to non-judicial personnel. We intend to press for further oversight and accountability and will be laying down amendments to that effect. It should also be noted that the procedure rule committee has, for many years, undertaken some excellent work, but the delegation of judicial functions cannot be thought of as a simple procedural matter for a rule committee—rather, this is something worthy of secondary legislation in this House.
The reforms that the Government are seeking to introduce through the Bill are designed primarily to cut costs, but, as the Bill stands, there is a risk that the procedure rule committee will be placed in the difficult position of balancing pressures to save costs against maintaining fundamental rights. Amending the Bill so that the procedure rule committee must at least consider the impact on rights would provide important protections both for the rights of the citizen and for the integrity of the committee. We ask the Government to consider that any decision made by someone who has been delegated judicial functions should be open to a full reconsideration or review by a judge. That would guarantee that purely procedural matters could be dealt with more efficiently; if any decisions were deemed contentious, however, they could be reviewed by an experienced and appropriately qualified judge.
We also note that the Government’s late amendment in the other place obliged the procedure rule committee to consider making rules to determine which of the functions performed by authorised staff could be subject to a party’s right of reconsideration by a judge. However, that does not satisfy our concerns. Indeed, it is simply replicating the fundamental problem of the Bill. By placing the obligation on the rule committee, it delegates a legislative duty to the same unaccountable body. Consequently, we will be pushing ahead with our amendment, supported by the Law Society and the Bar Council, that proposes a statutory right to judicial reconsideration for any party to a decision by an authorised person. We will also seek to ensure that, in drawing up the rules on reconsideration, the rule committee must consider which functions and decisions will be clearly capable of having a material impact on the substantive rights of the parties. I reiterate that we respectfully disagree with the noble and learned Lords in the other place.
In the Ministry of Justice’s explanatory notes on delegation to staff, it is stated that decisions are unlikely to involve contested matters, yet this is not in the Bill. I remind the Lord Chancellor that case management decisions are essential judicial functions that should not necessarily be delegated. We need to ensure that the decisions that impact on the fairness of the process remain within the remit of the judges.
We also have concerns about the lack of minimum qualification for the authorised staff, particularly where staff are not legally qualified or sufficiently experienced to undertake such functions effectively. The Law Society has suggested that the requirements for qualification, training and experience should be set at three years’ post-qualification, as a solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive for all types of functions, and that that approach should be consistent across all courts and tribunals. I know that the Lord Chancellor has disagreed with this, but I ask him again to agree with the Law Society’s recommendation that a minimum requirement of three years’ post-qualification as a solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive is appropriate for court staff who are to be delegated judicial functions. Will he also provide assurances that provisions in the Bill that allow the delegation of judicial functions will only be considered where staff have appropriate legal qualifications?
A further omission from the Bill—this point has been made by Women’s Aid—is the provision prohibiting the cross-examination of victims of domestic violence that we all looked forward to in last year’s aborted Bill. The stark evidence from groups such as Women’s Aid is that this gap in the law is being used as a further means of control and abuse. We are concerned that such provisions are not now in the Bill. Will the Lord Chancellor tell us when the Government will bring this particular provision to Parliament so that we can deal with it and have a law in our statute book to bar people from cross-examining victims of domestic violence?

Jess Phillips: Those of us who have campaigned were expecting to see in the Bill some of the things that have been promised, such as the banning of cross-examination. Senior members of the judiciary have themselves called for that measure, but find that current legislation ties their hands. Given that it is not in this Bill, I am certain that Ministers will tell us that it will be in the domestic abuse Bill that will be brought forward. Why will women have to suffer this experience between now and whenever that legislation comes forward? Why is the provision not in this Bill?

Yasmin Qureshi: I thank my hon. Friend for her work on raising these issues. She is absolutely right. Why is the provision not in this Bill? It was in last year’s Bill, which was aborted because of the general election. It should not be that difficult to put it into a legislative framework.
Let me give an example of something that happened a few months ago in the family courts. Two spouses had an issue about the custody of their child. The female plaintiff had made allegations of domestic violence and sexual abuse against her husband, and it was obvious that the male respondent wanted to cross-examine her. However, the judge had to step in to ask the question on behalf of the male respondent. The case then went to the High Court, where the judge said that it was really not appropriate for members of the judiciary to have to intervene in such cases. The provision should already be on the statute book. We have talked about it for so long and it is not that difficult; it should be on the statute book as soon as possible.
To truly understand the impact of the Bill, we must look at it in the context of the Government’s wider austerity agenda. As it stands, the Bill has the potential  to have a profound impact on our justice system. The double delegation of powers that the Government are intent on introducing is a slippery slope that, without proper controls, puts rights at risk. Without further careful scrutiny and additional safeguards, the Bill has the potential to erode long-established legal rights.
The amendments that Labour tabled in the other House were reasonable, sensible and practical, and we really cannot see why the Government cannot adopt and accept them. The Bill has limitations. The Government should listen to us and others who want to improve it, and accept our amendments, which have the support of the Law Society and the Bar Council, so that we protect our judicial system.

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor.
In this debate, there is a danger of allowing the ideal to become the enemy of the good and the deliverable. I rather share the regret of the shadow Minister that this is not a larger Bill. I was a great supporter of the Prisons and Courts Bill that was lost prior to the 2017 election, as were all Members on the Treasury Bench today. There were clauses in the Prisons and Courts Bill that I hope will be brought back soon, and the prevention of cross-examination of victims in domestic abuse cases is certainly one of them. It is important not only that that issue be resolved, but that the court-appointed advocates who undertake that work be properly remunerated, and I say that in the context of the ongoing review of legal aid. It will be necessary for those advocates to prepare the cross-examination with particular care, because such cases always require a particular degree of sensitivity.
Removing the ability of the complainant in person to cross-examine is right and proper, but proper means—proportionate with the equality of arms—must be put in place and properly funded to enable the trial to be conducted fairly. I understand the Lord Chancellor’s point that it may not be appropriate to put that in this Bill, but that is not a reason not to bring forward the fully thought through and worked out provisions at the earliest possible opportunity. That is a digression from this worthwhile Bill, which does a number of valuable things, some of which I will mention.
Reference has been made to the debates in the Lords. The Lord Chancellor was right to say that proceedings in the Lords were conducted in a particularly constructive and co-operative spirit. Maybe that was because of the very high percentage of lawyers participating in the debates in the other place. It was a civilised and careful consideration of the Bill, in which I think there was—with respect to the Opposition Front Bench—rather less attempt to politicise some of these provisions than we have heard this afternoon. Many of the measures in the Bill are important and technical reforms that require a statutory basis, and should be welcomed.
I noticed the discussion of changes to judicial titles during the debates in the other place. If I have a slight regret about this Bill, it is one that I share with the noble Lord Mackay of Clashfern about the abolition of the title of justices’ clerk. I can understand why that is proposed, but having practised in the criminal courts  for 30-odd years, I have a certain affection for the title, as did Lord Mackay. But that change goes with this Bill, so maybe it is a price that has to be paid for modernity. Perhaps I am being uncharacteristically reactionary in regretting the disappearance of the title of stipendiary magistrate as well. I always thought that “Mr St John Harmsworth, stipendiary magistrate at Marlborough Street” had a greater ring to it than “Mr St John Harmsworth, district judge (magistrates courts)” might ever have done, but I suppose the change did give a certain degree of standardisation.
We have been talking about appropriate levels of qualification. There was a time when justices’ clerks did not have to be legally qualified. I do not say that was a good thing. I remember appearing quite often, as a very young barrister, at Billericay magistrates court in Essex in front of the last non-legally qualified justices’ clerk in the country. He had some sort of grandfathered rights that went back to a time when one could do 10 years as a justices’ clerk and that was regarded as giving one the qualification for appointment. [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) is much shocked by these things. We had to be terribly robust in those days. I remember that I managed to persuade that justices’ clerk to dismiss a case at half time on the basis that a rice flail was not an offensive weapon per se, because it might have had a legitimate use for flailing rice. Whether that was going to happen on Basildon high street, I am not sure.
We have moved on, and the justices’ clerks are much more professional now, and much more fully integrated, so despite my regret about the loss of the title, the new one does reflect more adequately the role that they now have as legal advisers to a very important part of our system—the lay judiciary. In fact, the Justice Committee heard evidence from representatives of the Magistrates Association today regarding the updating of our previous report on the magistracy. They can play a critical role in this. I think that they broadly welcome the attempts at modernisation of practice and procedure that this Bill will assist.

Alex Chalk: Like the Chairman of the Justice Committee, I welcome these measures to modernise the process. However, this should not be allowed to distract from what remains a fundamental problem, which is that there are not enough people coming into the judiciary. We need to ensure that they are properly incentivised to do so and rewarded for doing so, because the backlog of cases in the Court of Appeal and elsewhere will not be resolved by these measures alone. Does he agree?

Bob Neill: I totally agree. These are useful, practical measures on their own, but they are by no means a solution to the problem. In fact, they are but a very small part of the solution.
I am bit concerned by some of the Law Society’s suggestions in briefings that some of the broader programme of courts reform is posited on making savings in judicial posts and appointments of about £37.5 million. I hope that the Lord Chancellor—or the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), when she responds to the debate—will be able to set our minds at rest on that. We can make savings by using staff qualified at the appropriate level  in what one might term purely interlocutory or procedural matters, but all the decisions on issues of substance in any case—whatever the sum involved or whatever the nature of the charge, in a criminal case—have impacts on the individuals concerned, and they should, in my judgment, be taken only by properly qualified lawyers in an open court process. That is important.
We cannot allow the valuable nature of this Bill to take away from the fact that we need an injection of resource into the criminal justice system. We are seeing a shortfall in appointments to the High Court bench on a regular basis. A number of hon. Members have talked about the integrity of our justice system and the importance of its legal standing, and the quality of the judiciary is key to that. We also see difficulties in making sufficient appointments—full time, at any rate—to the circuit bench. It is easier with recorders, I grant, because they are able to sit part time, but there is a real issue there.
There is also a real issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham knows, about morale. I think that the Lord Chancellor and the Under-Secretary of State understand that and take it on board. I do not expect them to be able to wave a magic wand and solve everything overnight, but it is important to stress these things. Technical changes are useful as far as they go, but they cannot underpin what is essentially a people-based system.

Harriet Harman: I pay tribute to the excellent work that the hon. Gentleman’s Committee does on these and many other issues. I agree that there were perhaps things in the Prisons and Courts Bill that have not found their way into this Bill. He may agree that we should, none the less, take the opportunity of this Bill to try to sort out the problem of the previous sexual history of victims in rape trials being dragged through the court and used by the defence in an irrelevant way to undermine the complainant’s evidence, sometimes when applications are not even made to introduce this material. Does he agree that this Bill is an opportunity to deal with that problem? We know that this is happening, and it undermines getting rape convictions.

Bob Neill: I very much respect the point that the right hon. and learned Lady is making, but I must say to her frankly that I am not convinced that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle for dealing with that issue, although it is a real one, simply because the Bill is very tightly drawn in scope and relates to function. What she wishes to do—I understand why she may wish to do it—would have significant impacts on the operation of the law of evidence, which is a consideration that deserves to be looked at on its own. We probably have a shared view as to what we might want to achieve, but I am not sure that this Bill would be the right one to achieve it.
We do need to look very carefully at the whole approach to the way that previous sexual conduct is dealt with in rape and other sexual offence cases, but we also have to bear in mind—I say this as somebody who prosecuted and defended in these cases—that we should not assume that these issues will never be relevant to the key issue in the case. A balance has to be struck, and very often that is a decision that can only be taken by the trial judge in the light of the submissions made by the parties. I would not want us to restrict the ability of the trial judge to make that decision, because they are  best placed to do that. However, the right hon. and learned Lady’s point about failure to follow the procedures and make proper application in advance, and enforcement of those procedures by the judiciary, is an important one that we certainly ought to take forward.

Harriet Harman: Can I go back to plan B, then? Even if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill is not the right place to address such a considerable evidential problem—and there is controversy around this—would he not, at the very least, like to see tucked in under clause 3, “Functions of staff”, an obligation on staff to record, when an application under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is made, what evidence was brought forward and what the result of the application was? There is an absence of evidence about what the courts are actually doing. That enables them to say that there is not a problem, when evidence such as that brought forward by Vera Baird, the police and crime commissioner for Northumbria, says that there is a problem. Does he agree that this Bill could at least get us recording that very important information?

Bob Neill: That is a very interesting and constructive point, because we do want to have an evidence base. Again, the only caution I have is this: is it appropriate to do that through a form of statute, or is it better done through placing that requirement in the criminal procedure rules? I am going to talk about the procedure rules in a moment. Either way, there should be a means of capturing that information, and I am very sympathetic to doing so. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Lady and I could talk with others about the best way forward on achieving that, because it should certainly be possible, with modern court technology.

John Howell: May I take my hon. Friend back to where he left off? Does he agree that the threat to the use of English law around the globe comes about from the efficiency or otherwise of the judges, and that the more that judges are unable to be efficient in giving a judgment, the more there is a threat to the use of English law? Does he agree that this Bill goes a long way towards trying to sort that out?

Bob Neill: Yes, I do. That is very important, and that is why it is not surprising that experienced former judges have expressed a view on this. We have referred to the former President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, and the immediate past Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I note also the observations of Lord Thomas’s predecessor, the noble Lord Judge. They all supported the thrust of this Bill in enabling more flexible deployment of judges within tribunals and the assignment of procedural matters to non-judicial court staff. They also warned about not unduly fettering the ability of the court procedure rules committees, which have on them practitioner representatives who are able to set matters in the light of their practical experience. That is absolutely right, and it in no way contradicts the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham about the need to have the requisite number of top-class members of the judiciary. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) that this is a sensible and proportionate Bill.
I want to touch on a couple of other points that relate to the issues legitimately raised by both the Law Society and the Bar Council. It is possible to meet their concerns in a proportionate way. I think it is fair to say that the Bar Council and the Law Society’s main issue, in terms of the scope of the Bill, has been the relationship to authorised staff. They make a fair point about the underlying issue of the courts modernisation programme, which I will touch on later. There was an acceptance in the other place that some types of procedure and hearing do not require a legally qualified person to deal with them.
However, we have to ensure that when the procedure committee draws up the rules around this—I welcomed the Government’s amendment, which gives greater clarity about how that will operate and makes it easier to achieve—it is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham said, placed in the invidious situation of trading off access to rights against costs. I have sympathy, therefore, for what underpinned the concern raised by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), though I do not advocate the same solution. That balance cannot be allowed to be swayed unduly in terms of the transactional or the financial.
The right of reconsideration is worthy of consideration, and I hope the Government will look seriously at it. It is a question of the appropriate level at which to pitch that. Some of the matters that it is proposed be delegated are almost entirely procedural in nature. We should distinguish between delegating to a court official a procedural matter, such as granting an extension in time, which many of us probably think is not the sort of thing where the fundamental rights of a party are so affected that it requires reconsideration, and something that goes to the issue of the case, such as a summary judgment. The way forward is to give the rules committees the ability to reflect those distinctions, rather than to try to spell things out too much in statute.
It has been suggested that there should be a form of benchmark against which the rules and procedures operations are carried out. That may be worthy of consideration by Ministers, and it may be discussed in Committee. I would not want to tie people’s hands, but we could have some form of benchmark against which that is done, without falling into the trap that Lord Thomas, Lord Judge and Lord Neuberger counselled against, of overly restricting, over-legislating and tying the hands of the judges.
I take issue with the Opposition on this point. It is not right or desirable for politicians—who, by their nature in our system, are partisan animals—to seek to constrain too much the operation of the rules or procedure of the desirably and deliberately independent courts. We have to be careful about how we achieve a balance. Our job is to set the policy and legislative framework within which the courts operate, but if we get too far into the detail, we run the risk of trespassing on judicial independence, and also on efficiency.
There are good aspects to the Bill that I hope the House will take forward. I intervened on the hon. Member for Bolton South East to point out that it was Mr Joshua Rozenberg, the well-known journalist, who coined the phrase
“it is a little too late and quite a lot too little.”
In fact, to be wholly accurate, it was Lord Marks, a Liberal Democrat shadow Minister, who quoted it in the other place. It is a very good phrase, but it is harsh   on the Bill. The Bill does good work within the scope that it seeks, but that does not mean we should not support the Lord Chancellor and his Ministers when they seek, as I am sure they will, to find the appropriate legislative time to bring forward measures on a number of other aspects of the former Prisons and Courts Bill, which was lost in the Dissolution.
The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and I have discussed some matters of criminal and family law in domestic violence cases that it is important for us to tie up. I stress strongly that much of these reform proposals stem from the excellent reports of Lord Justice Briggs and Lord Justice Leveson. Their reports were seminal in suggesting a modernising way forward, but taking that way forward requires the underpinning of statute. I urge the Lord Chancellor, who has been very patient in listening to us all, to make it a priority to persuade the business managers to find time for the legislative vehicle that will enable the modernisation of the court procedure rules on all civil matters to be brought forward. The Leveson proposals could have statutory underpinning in the same Bill. There is a real sense of uncertainty, referred to by the Law Society and the Bar Council, about the statutory underpinning for this ambitious courts programme. That was also picked up by the National Audit Office in its inquiry.
I welcome the Bill, and I support it as a valuable and worthwhile step forward, but—I think the Lord Chancellor would be the first to accept this—it is only one part of the programme that we need to deliver. We ought to get the Bill through the House as swiftly as possible and then move on to the next step. I note that Second Reading in the Lords lasted just under two hours, which shows that we can be both erudite and remarkably brief, which is perhaps an improvement on some debates we have here.

Thangam Debbonaire: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, who gave us an awful lot to think about. I agree with him that there is a great deal in the Bill that is good and that I would not wish to speak against, but I want to draw attention to a couple of its aspects about which I have concerns. As a non-lawyer, I am happy to be corrected if I have got something wrong and to be reassured by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), when she makes her concluding remarks. I wish to raise a couple of areas of concern, particularly in relation to the rights of refugees and asylum seekers in the legal process, but also about the context in which these proposals are being made.
There is a sign on a wall near my constituency office in Bristol that says:
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
I am sure all Members will know that those are the words of Dr Martin Luther King, and they are as relevant now as they were when he first wrote them in his letter from Birmingham jail in 1963. I quote them because a reduction in justice for any of us is a reduction in justice for all of us. When a court closes, as is happening in many of our towns and cities, making it  harder for witnesses to travel to give evidence and for members of the public to hear court proceedings; when someone gets inadequate advice from someone supposedly giving them legal advice; or when the powers of the court to act fairly and impartially are compromised anywhere in our system, it is a potential threat to justice for all of us. I know that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister would not wish to do that, so I pose my questions to ask whether we are sure we are doing everything we can to maintain the spirit of that quote.
We may be the victim of a crime or the witness to a crime. We may be accused of a crime, or we may know someone who is wrongly accused. We may have a constituent who needs our help. For all those things, we need our courts to work properly. I am truly concerned about the Bill. While it has good points, there are a couple of places where there are questions to ask.
First, I am concerned that these changes are being pushed through Parliament at a time when Members are understandably focused on other matters and when, as far as I know—the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst may correct me if I am wrong—there has not been prelegislative scrutiny. I would like to know when there will be some form of legislative scrutiny by the Justice Committee. There are provisions in the Bill that provide for regulations to be made through statutory instruments. That has been attended to in the other place, but those instruments provide for very limited scrutiny. Again, this is in a context where we will be overwhelmed by Brexit-related statutory instruments in the coming months and years.
Then there is the background of cuts to legal aid. I recognise that that is outwith the scope of the Bill, but it has an impact on the effect of the Bill. The wider context is that the justice system is under great strain. If the Lord Chancellor or the Minister has read the book “The Secret Barrister”, they will know the context I am referring to. I am also alluding particularly to refugees and asylum seekers, because I am concerned that they may be the people for whom the supposedly straightforward administrative advice that the Lord Chancellor mentioned may turn out to be more complicated and have a more far-reaching impact.
I need more reassurance from the Minister that there will not be an impact on immigration claims and appeals cases, which are sometimes already affected by perhaps less than great legal advice or legal aid cuts, and that the system will not be put under further pressure. That would mean that people who genuinely need our help, and who are entitled to sanctuary, could be failed and may be returned to places where they would face further danger. I would like some reassurance or clarification on that from the Minister, or perhaps an undertaking to look at it during the Bill’s further stages.
On legal qualifications, I refer hon. Members and the Minister to the comments of the noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss in the debate on the Bill in the other place. She said:
“My Lords, as a former judge of the family court, I wonder in what circumstances such judges—district judges, circuit judges or even possibly High Court judges—might need the advice of those who were not themselves qualified lawyers. I find that difficult. I see no difficulty with justices of the peace—that is perfectly obvious—but at the moment I cannot see how any family court judge, at any level, should be advised on legal issues by someone who is not legally qualified.”
She continued:
“I would be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining what he sees this applying to, and in what circumstances.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 416.]
It would be helpful if the Minister could give this Opposition Member, as well as others who may be more knowledgeable than me and certainly the non-lawyers in this place, an idea of the answer to the questions that the noble and learned Baroness asked.
When our Front Bencher in the other place withdraw the Labour amendment on qualifications, she did so reluctantly. I note that she said she was withdrawing it with “a somewhat heavy heart”. I am therefore particularly concerned that the concerns she raised in the other place may not yet have been dealt with adequately. I would like some reassurance from the Minister on that.
As I have said, I am concerned, drawing on my casework as an MP, about the potential impact on appeals in immigration and asylum cases, which may be put under strain if there is any question of administrative information being given by people who are not legally qualified. Those affected are multiply vulnerable: they are usually traumatised, they may have little English, and with the best will in the world, they may not be capable of understanding the legal advice or administrative information that they are given. This may seem a tiny, nit-picking and technical point—and perhaps I have got it wrong—but I really think it is worth checking that we have not unwittingly put asylum seekers and refugees in a position where administrative advice may have a more far-reaching consequence than I am sure the Lord Chancellor intends.
On cost cutting, in Bristol we have a well-appointed court in the centre of the city, but I understand from colleagues who represent towns and smaller cities that they have experienced court and tribunal closures, resulting in increased journey times for victims and witnesses and reduced access to visible justice. The Law Society and others have already expressed great concerns about that, and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned the National Audit Office in that context.
Does the Minister recognise the concerns of those who see this Bill in the round—in the context of the wider cuts to court staff and court closures—about it being a move towards justice being delivered at a reduced rate? As I said, there are good things in the Bill. What is at issue is not that, but its impact and how it fits into the wider context.
The Bill does not in my view satisfactorily address the context of the cost cutting programme in courts, which is undermining access to justice and is being pushed through without proper scrutiny. I urge the Minister, if she has not already done so, to add “The Secret Barrister” to her Christmas reading list. I have not finished it, truth be told, but I will undertake to finish it if she will, because that may be useful for all of us. I am concerned that the Bill could be an attempt, in places, to cut corners and weaken safeguards, and I am concerned about delegating powers to possibly underqualified court staff without adequate training. I urge the Minister to consider Opposition Front-Bench amendments to that effect.
I urge the Government and the Minister to remember what I said at the start. I repeat those words:
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
I would like the Minister’s reassurance that she is truly convinced that this Bill does not, even in the smallest way, represent any threat to justice.

John Howell: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), not least because, like her, I am not a lawyer. I think the more non-lawyers who speak in this debate, the better it will be, because we bring common sense to such a debate, which I am afraid from time to time legally qualified Members do not.
I was, however, completely entranced by the description of justices’ clerks given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). I thought that my opportunity had now come, because these were non-legally qualified people who had a role to play, and I thought, “This is an opportunity for me when I finish here”. Sadly, however, even that has been taken away from me.
If I may, I will just pick up on one of the things that the hon. Member for Bristol West mentioned when she talked about other things distracting us from our examination of this area. I think this is just the sort of Bill that we need to concentrate on. I do not think we should be distracted by other things, because the Bill is crucial to the management of justice and of our courts.

Thangam Debbonaire: I just wish to clarify my point about Members being distracted. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is exactly the sort of Bill we should be focusing on, but my concern is that Members are distracted by the wider constitutional impact of the word beginning with B, which I will not mention.

John Howell: I am sure some Members are distracted by that, but I am incredibly pleased that neither she nor I are, and that we are going to concentrate on the Bill in a very big way.
I mentioned in an intervention on the Lord Chancellor that I was actually the first Member of Parliament to go on the Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship in law. It was a particularly enlightening experience. I cannot remember the number of days that I was allocated, but  I doubled the number of days I spent on it, because I spent most of the time sitting alongside judges, on the bench, listening to what they did. The number of different courts I saw was tremendous—I remember starting in the commercial courts, which I will come back to in a little while. They represented such a technological advance on all the other courts I sat in on, and that was a really good thing to see.
To go back to a point I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the first thing that came out of that experience of sitting alongside judges was an absolute admiration for their integrity and for what they did and how they did it. The second thing was an understanding of how overworked they are. As non-lawyers, we perhaps tend to think of judges just turning up, sitting and listening to the case, and giving judgment, but the amount of preparation that goes into hearings is phenomenal. That was a good thing to see and experience, and it applied whether it was the bankruptcy court or the Court of Appeal, in which I sat on two occasions.
The point I made to my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor earlier was about the speed of justice. I am not a great advocate of speed in itself, but I think there is a threat to English law: not Brexit, but the ability of our courts to dispense justice on a timely basis. When I sat in with judges, I saw that they were often so preoccupied with the minor administrative elements of their role they did not have time to dispense justice in what I would consider a timely manner. That was the case whether I was sitting in a higher court or, in particular, in a tribunal—I will come on to tribunals in a moment. Efficiency in making judgments and delivering English justice is one of the hallmarks of the justice system and one that we lose at our peril. If that point alone is made, it is made well.
One issue I would like to raise, which may at first not seem immediately applicable to the Bill, is the age of judges. I believe it does apply to the Bill, because consideration is being given to other people taking on judicial functions. The point about age has also been raised in relation to the magistracy, and it also applies to lords justices and others. When the Lord Chief Justice appeared before the Justice Committee last week, we asked him about the age of justices and he explained that there were mechanisms by which they could be extended beyond the age of 70 in certain capacities. However, that is an artificial cut-off—if we were stopped from being MPs at 70, I think there would be shouts of horror. Some of us—I am nowhere near that age now—would consider that we were being cut off in the prime of our life. The same is the case with judges. They have acquired a tremendous amount of experience, principally as barristers. They have had a lot of judicial experience, and they are just coming to the point where they can use that experience in the best possible way. I therefore think it is necessary to look at extending the age at which judges retire to beyond 70. To be able to do that, we must look at the courts in a holistic way.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The coalition Government, as I am sure he will know, increased the age at which members of the public could sit as jurors to 75. It seems quite bizarre that a lay person who is fit, healthy and willing to serve can sit as a juror up to the age of 75, but people of that age cannot sit as a judge of the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court—unlike in the United States, where they can go on for a considerable time.

John Howell: I am not sure I would like to follow the experience of the United States in this matter, but my hon. Friend makes an absolutely first-class point. There needs to be a consistent approach to the age at which we can use people or force them to retire.
There is a lot to be said for the system in the Bill that would enable people to undertake some activities undertaken by judges. As an aside, I said that I am a non-lawyer, but I am currently seeking to extend my ability to undertake arbitration—I hope that that does not cut across or invalidate what I am saying. Such an ability is an important element of the mix that needs to be taken into account when we are looking at the judicial system as a whole.
When I was involved in sitting with judges for the fellowship, I was very much aware of the difference between courts in digitalisation and technology. In the  commercial court, the system was utterly brilliant. I sat with a judge who was listening to an English law case in Portuguese. The transcript of the English translation appeared almost instantaneously on his laptop on his desk in front of him. The use of technology to get information out was absolutely fantastic. As I said to the Lord Chancellor, however, employment tribunals might as well have still been using the quill pen, they were so antiquated—not the judgments being made, but how the courts were organised and delivered justice. If we want access to justice, it is absolutely essential that the process of digitalisation in courts is seen through to the end. It materially influences access to justice.
When I sat in the Court of Appeal, prisoners appealed their sentences via video link. It was clearly not a good idea to bring the prisoners into court, so video links were used all the time to great effect, enabling judgments to be made. There were some discrepancies. For example, it took some time to get the focus right for some prisoners. I understand that that was due to the camera equipment, rather than the features of the prisoners.
When I started my work as chairman of the all-party group on alternative dispute resolution, I had the opportunity to speak to Lord Briggs about his proposals for the justice system as a whole. The Bill moves us closer towards what Lord Briggs was after, but it does not take us all the way to it. For example, the digitisation of divorce is welcome, but his proposal for online courts is very valuable. I know that that is controversial among lawyers, but it is important to enabling both the delivery of justice and access to justice. I would like that process to be extended beyond the scope of the Bill, so that we can receive and transmit electronic evidence in the handling of individual court cases. Anything that can move the legal profession into the 21st century is to be welcomed.
If I may, I would like to give a plug to the Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship. Having been the first to go on it, I recommend that hon. Members absolutely do so. The experience of sitting alongside judges is absolutely first class. My first appearance in court—if I can put it that way—was in a commercial court. I went to the court with the judge. We were just about to go through the door and I said, “I shall just go and sit at the back of the court.” He said, “What do you mean? You’re sitting up next to me in the court.” It was a great shock to me—

Bob Neill: A great shock to the defendant.

John Howell: It was a great shock to the barristers, particularly when I sat in the planning court and the barrister was well known to me. We played a little trick on him by coming in through different doors so that he was unaware of who we were.
The point of all that is that it is a very valuable training scheme. The more that people can go on it, the more there will be an understanding of the issues raised in the Bill and of the need to bring the courts into the 21st century.

Jack Brereton: It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), and I am very pleased to  speak on Second Reading of the Bill, which is part of a wider programme of reforms to our judicial system. In 2016, there was a joint statement about the reform programme from the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals saying that the reforms would combine
“our respected traditions with the enabling power of technology. The vision is to modernise and upgrade our justice system so that it works even better for everyone, from judges and legal professionals, to witnesses, litigants and the vulnerable victims of crime. When they have to engage with the system, we want everyone to have available to them the finest justice system in the world.”
That is absolutely right. That is what we want from these reforms; we want a system that works for everybody and is more accessible to everybody.
I also want to bring the attention of the House to what Susan Acland-Hood, the chief executive of the Courts and Tribunals Service said about this:
“Our ambitious programme of court reform aims to bring new technology and modern ways of working to what is—and will remain—the best justice system in the world.”
That is absolutely right. We want to make our fantastic and world-renowned justice system the best in the world. She also says:
“We know our systems and processes haven’t always kept pace with the rapid technological developments…around us.”
That is the key point that is so important for our courts, our tribunal services and our justice system. They very much need to remain relevant, in time and in touch with technological change and it is important that we have that as we move forward.
The Bill is about delivering on those significant reforms to the Courts and Tribunals Service. It includes proposals to develop high-quality digital services, which are so important as we move towards a more digitised age. People are now so used to using digital technologies.

Jim Cunningham: I hope that the introduction of new technology will mean speeding up casework, because for far too long there has been a large gap before something comes to court. I do not think that that is fair in terms of justice or for the individual concerned. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me?

Jack Brereton: I absolutely agree. Like many Members, I have had a number of constituents come to me to raise concerns about the timeliness of hearings, going to court and how long it takes to get to court. That is so important. I am pleased that it is one of the key things that will, I hope, be addressed by the Bill, which will speed up that process so that we see a much more efficient system of getting into court and getting through the court process.
Unfortunately, at the moment, much of the court system is clunky and bureaucratic. Many of the processes used are over-complex and labour intensive. Another word we might use is counterintuitive, as some of the processes are not entirely logical. We need to reform the process to make it more effective and more efficient, and to deliver more for my constituents, those of the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and constituents across the country. We need to ensure that we have a system that remains relevant.
Other things will particularly be improved through digitisation. The public can now apply for non-contested divorces, respond to a jury summons, track social security appeals and issue a response to civil money claims online. The move towards more of these services being offered online is really important, and it is positive to see encouraging and positive feedback from the public about the new services that have been introduced and the work that has been done to encourage more digitisation.
The Bill will continue to build on the reforms, making better use of the skills and experiences of the cohort of judges in our criminal and judicial system. It is important that judges’ time is used to the most advantage and the greatest effect and that we direct judges to the most serious cases, where their expertise can be used to best advantage. We should be ensuring that they are freed from some of the more mundane and routine tasks that can be done by lower-level staff who will be appropriately qualified and experienced to deal with such matters. Senior judges should not be dealing with such issues.
The provisions in the Bill will move forward the process of building efficiency and effectiveness and speed up the turnover of cases, which, as I have already said, is extremely welcome to constituents up and down the country, particularly my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South. On a number of occasions, I have had to write to the chief executive of the Courts and Tribunals Service and Ministers in the Department about speeding up some of these cases and trying to get some of them to court in a timely way. I know that Members across the House have issues with that.
The Bill is very much about how we can improve the judicial system not just for the people who use it but for the people working in it, making it a much more effective system for judges and all the other very qualified staff who work in it. I am particularly pleased to see that Stoke-on-Trent and Birmingham have been announced as the first two new locations for the Courts and Tribunals Service centres. It is fantastic to see that my own area will benefit from greatly improved services, with faster services for our constituents and better guidance to help the public and professionals understand and use the court process much more effectively. That is very important; the court process needs to be accessible to all our constituents. It should not just be for those who are well informed on these matters.
I am pleased that Stoke-on-Trent will be one of the first two locations. The Courts and Tribunals Service centres have completed the process of organisational design and job design and are commencing the internal selection process for staff to take up roles in the two projects. I want to go into a bit more detail about what that will entail. It will reshape how the Courts and Tribunals Service works, ensuring that it is a much more effective organisation in providing services that our constituents need. Our courts and tribunals will be much more focused on supporting trials and hearings, and it is so important that they do that. The roles of clerks will change. They will be able to support judges and users of courts in more ways, such as by using technology to support their core role. The courts and tribunals will also have listing officers where they do now and staff to support judges, including with more delegated powers, where that is agreed by the judiciary.
This is about making our judicial system and the Courts and Tribunals Service much easier, more accessible and more transparent, and reducing many of the complexities that have unfortunately existed in the judicial system. It is also about cutting down on some bureaucratic and administrative processes, and moving to a much more efficient service, ensuring that we have a service that is providing a first port of call for members of the public who want information on their cases. It is so important for constituents to be able to access information about cases and services as easily as possible.
The first two Courts and Tribunals Service centres, which will begin by supporting our first reformed services—divorce, probate, the single justice service, and social security and child support—will open in Stoke-on-Trent and Birmingham in January 2019. I very much look forward to that and hope that this will move forward easily now. Reforms will involve moving the location of some services in the future. The report talks about the importance of buildings and about the Courts and Tribunals Service learning lessons where we are selling off property or where property is changing, so that we take on board the views of the communities involved. Many of these buildings are important assets to their communities. Many of them are historic buildings in the heart of their communities, and I want to make Members aware of what has been experienced in Stoke-on-Trent.
The magistrates court in Fenton in my constituency was one of 93 courts in England and Wales that were identified for closure and it subsequently did close, in 2012, as part of measures to save about £41 million. As Members can imagine, that provoked a significant outcry in the community. The magistrates court was based in the former town hall in that community, which is a fantastic Victorian building. I am pleased that campaigners have been able to save the building for community use. There are significant lessons to be learned on how we dispose of these buildings and how we can bring them into effective community use. That building, which was used for many, many years as the magistrates court, is now a real hub for the community, providing spaces for local businesses and community groups, a café and an art gallery. These fantastic facilities have been brought back into use for the community because things have been done in the right way. The Department has to be congratulated, following the significant pressure that was put on it by the community, on the fact that that site is now back with the community.
Justin, a descendant of William Meath Baker, the person who built Fenton town hall, bought the town hall and is gradually restoring that building and bringing it back into use for the community. Once fully completed and restored, that building, which was built in 1888, will be a fantastic part of the community, and I hope it will continue to be used for many decades to come by the community. As we move forward with these reforms—with the digitisation and the moving of courts to different locations—it is important to take account of the places we have had previously and the changes that were made. It would be great to see former courts up and down the land that are no longer needed, because of the efficiencies that have been made, being used for community value and in productive ways for our communities.
I wish to finish by giving a few statistics about what this process will mean for the Courts and Tribunals Service. More than £1 billion will be invested in transforming  the system, which will include 21st-century technology, online services and digital working, while making sure that our justice system remains the most accessible justice system possible for constituents such as mine. There is a real opportunity to make the system much more accessible to our constituents. The measures in the Bill will enable direct financial benefits of around £6 million per annum and enable wider court reforms, which will save around £200 million per annum once fully implemented. Over 65,000 people have used the pilots of new courts and tribunal services and received straightforward digital access to courts for the first time. Those statistics demonstrate the benefits of the Bill. That is why I am very pleased to support it today.

Imran Hussain: I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I start by acknowledging some of the excellent contributions from Members across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) passionately made a plea, and a very important point, on the impact on some of the most deprived and how we should always mitigate that. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the much respected Chair of the Justice Committee, made a very important point about the right to reconsideration, which I will come on to in greater depth.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because it gives me the chance to do justice to his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and to remind the House of my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which I should have done before. The hon. Lady and I had a minor debate about whether Lord Judge or Lord Marks quoted Joshua Rozenberg. We have now worked out between us that Lord Marks quoted him in a debate on this Bill, but that Lord Judge quoted him in a debate on another occasion—so they both quoted him, and he has been quoted twice here.

Imran Hussain: I am grateful to the Chair of the Justice Committee; he has saved me some time, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) asked me to clarify that matter in my speech.
I also acknowledge the contribution from the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), who rightly made the point about a consistency in approach across the judiciary and did so very well. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) spoke passionately about making our justice system the best in the world—which it already is, although we can improve it through further and better technology.
When the Government brought the Prisons and Courts Bill to the House, they declared an intention to reform our courts and judicial system. When that Bill fell because of the Prime Minister’s ill-fated decision to call a general election, they restated their intention for reform and brought this Bill before us. In opening the debate today, the Lord Chancellor spoke about court reform, new and innovative technology, and sweeping modernisation, yet the content of the Bill does not match his words. It is devoid of any substantial change  that will encourage greater access to justice, and it wilfully omits—and even seeks to avoid—debate on the huge, pressing concerns present in our courts system. When seen in the wider context of the Government’s austerity agenda and cuts to the justice system, it seems to be less about reform and more about squeezing as much money as possible from the courts.
Even at first glance, this is a minimal, even empty, Bill—a view that is vindicated upon reading it in more detail. It contains provisions to extend the redeployment of judges, to rename some of the judiciary and to allow an increased use of the delegation of judicial functions to non-judicial staff. While all those measures have value, in no way do they capture all that is needed to reform our courts and judiciary. They are measures taken by a Government intent on introducing a drip-feed of legislation in the absence of their parliamentary majority, avoiding scrutiny. Not only have they omitted anything substantial, but they have drafted the Bill to avoid some of the most pressing issues facing the justice system. It makes no mention of measures to address legal aid cuts, court closures, judicial vacancies or the protection of domestic abuse victims. It is here where the real failures of reform lie.
On legal aid cuts, access to justice has been decimated. Spending has fallen by one third from £2.5 billion to £1.6 billion per year, and the number of civil legal aid cases has fallen from more than 500,000 in the year to April 2013 to just under 150,000 in the year to April 2017. Vulnerable people are being left unable to defend themselves in areas as fundamental as housing, employment, immigration and welfare benefits, and unnecessary costs are being created for the taxpayer as cases are going to court that could have been resolved earlier. Further costs for the public purse arising from cuts are causing issues such as poor health, homelessness and debt. When people lack the money or knowledge to enforce their rights, those rights are worth nothing more than the paper they are written on, yet the Bill fails to mention legal aid or the urgent need to reverse the changes imposed by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
On court closures, the Bill is silent and has closed down discussion on this equally vital issue for people’s access to justice. It fails to address the significant £1 billion-plus courts reform programme that is being pushed through, as the Lord Chancellor stated earlier—but without any proper scrutiny. Since 2010, the courts and tribunals estate has changed significantly, with hundreds of courts having been closed in the name of austerity, and that has hampered people’s ability to access justice.
Many claimants and defendants must now travel miles to access justice and uphold their rights, the Government having closed their local courts, but many lack either the transport or the finances needed to do so and as a result have lost what should be their guaranteed right to justice. The Government argue that their modernisation programme reduces the need for an expansive courts estate, but we are clear that courts reform should increase access to justice, not ignore its erosion, and that any modernisation of our courts system must not be a smokescreen for cuts and closures that will cause long-term damage to access to justice.
As mentioned earlier, the Bill should have done much more to address the appalling situation of victims of domestic violence being subjected to questioning by those who assaulted them. Women’s Aid found that almost one in four of survey respondents had been cross-examined in this way. That unacceptable situation puts the victims of abuse through yet more torment and hardship, for no conceivable reason. It is cruel and barbaric. Measures to prevent it from happening and protect victims are supported by campaign groups on women’s rights and domestic violence, including Women’s Aid, but yet again such measures are absent from the Bill, despite having been in the Prisons and Courts Bill. There is no excuse for the Government’s not having included such measures in the Bill: that should shame them. I hope they can explain when such measures will be introduced to rectify the situation.
Where there is change, it is change that the Government have failed to impose with sufficient protection, and it is here that we will seek to amend the Bill. On a point of clarification, I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East did not mean to say earlier that we opposed the Bill: we will be abstaining today and tabling amendments in Committee. We are determined to deliver change and reform to the courts and judiciary, even if through the Government’s piecemeal efforts, but we are equally determined that it not be done at the expense of the judiciary, legal protections or judicial independence.
As the Government seek to delegate judicial functions to non-judicial staff, they must be careful of their use; they must not overuse non-judicial staff or use them as substitute judges to fill the significant number of judicial vacancies, which have risen to critical levels on their watch. Judges must absolutely remain at the top of their hierarchy in the courts, and their position must not be undermined by non-judicial staff assuming more and more of their functions. Granting further powers to non-judicial staff not only risks undermining the judiciary, but runs the even more dangerous risk of delegating serious judicial functions to unqualified staff.
It is important for the Bill to contain provisions that prevent excessive delegation, protect the reputation of the judiciary, and protect claimants, prosecutors and defendants from unqualified decisions. The Government ceded amendments to impose in primary legislation some restrictions on the type of judicial functions that authorised staff can discharge, but we need a strong further commitment; I hope that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister will strengthen their stance in that regard.
There are also insufficient protections for the expertise of our judiciary. Those would be provided through the imposition of a minimum standard on staff to whom decisions are delegated. The Government argue that authorised staff will not be making substantial decisions, but in his review of efficiency in criminal proceedings Sir Brian Leveson states that even non-contested elements of cases require experience, and Lord Briggs has said in his report that even if authorised staff are legally trained and qualified, they will not benefit from years of judicial experience in delivering the quality of services that is currently delivered by judges.
It is therefore extremely important that the decisions being delegated to authorised staff are appropriate to their experience and qualifications, as the prospect of  non-qualified, inexperienced staff carrying out judicial functions is all too real and worrisome. When such staff make decisions, it is also vital for those decisions to be subject to a statutory right to judicial reconsideration.
The Government state in their factsheet that the functions and responsibilities delegated to authorised staff will be uncontested, but it is easy to see how that could shift in the future to authorised staff making contested decisions, particularly in the absence of a clear definition of what delegation can be given. Justice has said that some of the functions anticipated for authorised staff, such as extending time for service and taking pleas, may well give rise to contested matters and have consequences for cases. It is therefore essential for the Government to impose a statutory right to reconsideration for decisions taken by authorised staff—a view supported by the Bar Council. In not imposing such measures when the public have a real and reasonable expectation that significant contested decisions in a court will be made by a judge—or, if not, that there will at least be a right of appeal or review before a judge—the Government are also playing fast and loose with the public’s trust in the judiciary and the rule of law.
The Government may claim that the procedure rules committees could and would impose similar safeguards in any rules that they produce, but that is simply not good enough, given that their amendments fail to offer sufficient guarantees of a right of review. We think that, and so does the Bar Council, which believes that a further amendment is necessary to abate its concern that the Government could exert pressure on the PRCs to reduce the right of reconsideration to increase the turnover of cases and clear the backlog. We are adamant that any backlog must not be cleared through the removal of a fundamental legal right of reconsideration.
Let me end by confirming that we will abstain today, but look forward to the Government’s seriously considering our amendments in Committee. The Lord Chancellor opened the debate in a spirit of collaboration. I assure him that all our amendments are very reasonable, and I am sure that he is an amiable chap who will view them in the same light. If the Government want to deliver a worthwhile Bill, they must listen to these arguments, not throw them aside. They must consider them in Committee before returning the Bill to the House.

Lucy Frazer: It gives me great pleasure to respond to the debate on this Bill, which, as many have said, is a small but important step in our court reform programme. As the Lord Chancellor set out in his speech, our courts together with our judiciary are respected throughout the world, but our courts and tribunals need to move with the times, and we have heard some excellent points today on how this Bill will improve our efficiency. I wish to respond to some of them.
As the excellent Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), said, the Bill’s measures are important technical reforms that require a statutory base. He highlighted the importance of the judicial process in general—the importance of each case to the individual whose case it is. These are important points that the Ministry of Justice must always bear in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) was right to point out, as I have, that this is but one part of a suite of measures of court reform. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) for saying there is a great deal that is good in this Bill, and she asked a number of questions that I am happy to answer. She said it is important that there be no reduction in justice over all, and was concerned about court closures. As 41% of our courts are used at less than half their available capacity, we must think about whether it is sensible to spend more money on the court estate as opposed to other things; at present a fifth of our budget is spent on the court estate. The hon. Lady suggested that we were pushing through this legislation at a time when the House is thinking about other things. That is patently untrue; its measures were included in the Prisons and Courts Bill, which was going through this House but fell at the general election.
The hon. Lady also raised concerns that must be addressed about the immigration tribunals. I highlight to her the measures we are introducing to give court staff the ability to undertake some judicial and other functions. They are already in operation in some tribunals. In the first and upper tier tribunals, for example, there are already three tiers of staff authorised to exercise different judicial functions; the most basic functions of issuing standard directions at commencement of a case can be carried out by authorised staff members at some chambers; slightly more complex functions are undertaken by caseworkers; and the most complex of the delegated functions are generally reserved to registrars, who are legally qualified. The hon. Lady asked whether I have read “The Secret Barrister”, and I am happy to confirm that the Lord Chancellor and I read it many months ago, just as we read many other publications that affect our Department.
The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) thought the measures were a cost-cutting exercise. They absolutely are not; we are asking ourselves how to use resources in the best way possible, how to deploy our judges as efficiently as possible, and how to ensure people get fair and swift judgment. That is not just our view; this is the view from Members across the House. As Lord Marks said in the other place,
“It seems to us relevant that the purpose of this part of the legislation is to increase efficiency and—hopefully, and to everybody’s advantage—the speed of decision-making within the court and tribunal systems, while making some cost savings in so doing.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 414.]
There are three key clauses in this Bill. One is clause 3 on authorised functions, which allows appropriately qualified and experienced court staff in civil, family and magistrates courts and the High Court, Court of Appeal, Court of Protection and tribunals to continue to carry out uncontroversial and straightforward judicial functions under judicial supervision. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) made an important point that I highlighted to the hon. Member for Bristol West: some court staff in these jurisdictions are already carrying out certain of these functions, but we are extending that to the Crown court and freeing up judges from the most routine tasks, ensuring that case preparation and management tasks are distributed at the appropriate level, or reserved to judges when that is proportionate.
As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) highlighted, the Bill prevents certain judicial functions—for or example, committing someone to prison or serving injunctions—from being undertaken by authorised staff. As his colleague Lord Marks said in the other place, it is right that these should not be delegated.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) suggested that there would be limited scrutiny of officers. This ignores the reality of the Bill, because their tasks will be set by the rule committee, which will be independent, judicially led and therefore best placed to determine the functions of staff. The committee will have a broad membership, including judiciary, representatives of court users and legal professionals. Lord Thomas said in the other place that
“it is important to stress the degree of control inherent in the Bill by the use of the rule committee. I was a member of and chaired…the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, which I can assure you is a highly representative body with many representatives of the legal profession.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]
The hon. Lady asked for three years’ post-qualification experience, but qualifications for staff giving legal advice should be set out in regulations, as they have been since 1979. Qualifications ought to depend on the functions involved, and many of the functions that staff currently exercise are straightforward and routine and do not require a legal qualification. An example would be the fixing of hearing dates. She also said that she wanted a statutory right for reconsideration, but many rule committees in the civil and judicial jurisdictions already have a right to reconsideration built in. Magistrates and family courts already have mechanisms for reviewing decisions. This is up to the rule committee, and if it decides not to create such a right, it must give its reasons to the Lord Chancellor, as the Bill states.
My hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) talked about the independence of staff. The Bill introduces a statutory guarantee of independence from the Lord Chancellor for authorised Courts and Tribunals Service staff in all jurisdictions, and makes staff answerable to the Lord Chief Justice or the senior president of the tribunal, rather than the Lord Chancellor.
This has been a wide-ranging debate in which the technical matters of the Bill have been raised along with a large number of other matters, which I shall mention briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst talked about the wider Bill; I should stress that the Lord Chancellor and I are keen to bring forward wider legislation in relation to courts, and we will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) rightly advocated for the industry and parliamentary placement scheme, which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) also raised with me in oral questions recently. It is an excellent scheme, and I encourage all those who are interested in joining it to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham spoke about the importance of the judiciary, and he was absolutely right to highlight that point. Our judiciary is respected throughout the world, and we need to continue  to attract the best talent to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley mentioned the importance of digitisation. We have a number of schemes in which we are bringing digitisation to our courts. For example, people can now apply online for probate, and petition online for divorce, and we are also bringing a significant amount of technology to the social security tribunal.
I would like to end by responding to the points raised by the hon. Member for Bolton South East and the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on the shadow Front Bench. They suggested that we were not addressing the bigger issues, but I would like to remind the House that we have been looking at the important question of legal aid for a number of months. We are in the middle of a legal aid review, and we are aware of the issues that are being raised. We will report on that by the end of the year. Hon. Members also raised the issue of domestic violence. As they will know, we have recently consulted on that issue, and we will be bringing in a domestic violence Bill. As they are also aware, cross-examination in the courts will be covered by that Bill.
Finally, we recently consulted on our approach to court closures, and I would like to clarify a number of matters raised today in relation to court closures and finance. The hon. Member for Bolton South East suggested that petty sums were being raised by our court closure programme, which is not true. Since 2015-16, we have recovered £122 million from the court closure programme, all of which is being reinvested in our justice system, and have spent approximately £170 million on capital maintenance.
The Ministry of Justice is committed to continuing to protect the individuals who go through our justice system, and to making their experience better, speedier, fair and just, and it is on that basis that I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (JUDICIARY AND FUNCTIONS OF STAFF) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 6 December 2018.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.

COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (JUDICIARY AND FUNCTIONS OF STAFF) BILL [LORDS] (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Lord Chancellor.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 5 to 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Financial Services)

That the draft Short Selling (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 9 October, be approved.
That the draft Deposit Guarantee Scheme and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 9 October, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)

That the draft Timeshare, Holiday Products, Resale and Exchange Contracts (Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (EFFECTIVE WORKING)

Resolved,
That this House approves the recommendation of the Liaison Committee in its First Report, Changing committee practice and procedure: enhancing effective working, HC 922 regarding the attendance of a member of one committee at another by invitation; and accordingly orders that Standing Order No. 137A be amended by adding the following sub-paragraph to paragraph (1): “(e) to invite members of any other committee to which this order applies to attend any meeting and, at the discretion of the chair, ask questions of witnesses or otherwise participate in its proceedings; but no member of another committee so invited may move any motion or amendment, vote or count towards the quorum.”—(Andrea Leadsom.)

PETITION - A NATIONAL CARERS STRATEGY FOR UNPAID CARERS

Barbara Keeley: I rise to present a petition on the behalf of residents of the United Kingdom who are unpaid carers, including Katy Styles. Carers Rights Day is on Friday 30 November, and it is important that we show that unpaid carers are valued, and that we consider their need for a proper national carers strategy.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that unpaid carers require a National Carers Strategy; further that the Department of Health and Social Care asked unpaid carers for evidence for a Carers Strategy in 2016 and have failed to produce that Carers Strategy; and further notes an online petition (209717) on this subject has received 2,124 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the government to produce National Carers Strategy to support unpaid careers with wider changes to benefits, employment and health and care systems that unpaid carers need, resulting in recognition and valuing of unpaid carers contributions to society.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002298]

Jagtar Singh Johal

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gareth Johnson.)

Martin Docherty: I thank the offices of Mr Speaker for allowing this important Adjournment debate this afternoon about my constituent, and a son of the Rock, Jagtar Singh Johal. It has not been straightforward, but as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have found many ways of raising the issue of my constituent’s ongoing detention in India on the Floor of the House over the past year, and it is a matter of ongoing concern that I must continue to find other ways to do so. Everyone will have heard me say over the past year that a critical element of all this is seeking a meeting with the Foreign Secretary of the day for myself and the Singh Johal family. I am glad to say that Jagtar’s brother is with us today in the Under-Gallery. He has travelled down from Dumbarton.
Jagtar Singh Johal is 31, and he grew up in the ancient burgh of Dumbarton in my constituency, attending Our Lady and St Patrick’s High School in the town, making him a true son of the rock of Dumbarton. In October 2017, Jagtar travelled with his father and brothers, including Gurpreet, to be married to his wife, also known as Gurpreet, on 18 October 2017—a joyful occasion for the entire family.
While the rest of the immediate family travelled back to Scotland on 1 November, Jagtar decided to stay in Punjab with his wife because, as many Members will know, she required a visa to enter the UK—a visa, I must note, she has still to be granted, although I appreciate that does not enter the Minister’s purview.
On Saturday 4 November 2017, Jagtar and Gurpreet did something most couples usually do on a Saturday. They went shopping—we all do it—in Rama Mandi, just outside Jalandhar city, where he was suddenly stopped by two men who had no distinct markings or identification. He was hooded and taken away from his wife a little over a fortnight after their wedding. It subsequently emerged that the men were plain-clothed police officers, and that Jagtar was being taken to—forgive my pronunciation if it is not correct—Bagha Purana police station. I can only imagine the horror that Gurpreet must have felt seeing her husband being taken in such a manner.
It is a matter of considerable sadness that this was not the end of the ordeal. Jagtar was taken some considerable distance—I estimate it to be around two hours—from where he had been held in Jalandhar. It was there, according to Jagtar himself, that torture began almost immediately, and I must warn the House that I am now going to describe it:
“The torture took place over 4 days, from 4th until the 7th of November at Moga… The torture took place intermittently, numerous times each day. Electric shocks were administered by placing the crocodile clips on my ear lobes, nipples and private parts. Multiple shocks were given each day… At some stages I was left unable to walk and had to be carried out of the interrogation room. Since then I have had problems urinating… Threats of taking me to a remote location where I would be shot dead were also given. At one point petrol was brought into the room and I was threatened with being burnt”—
I would assume burnt alive. He continues:
“The police forced me to make recordings in which I had to name according to what they were telling me to say. Blank pages were also forcibly signed from me”.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, the importance of which is indicated by the number of Members present. Does he agree that the treatment of any British citizen or national in custody must be a concern of the Government and of the Minister? There is an onus on the Government to ensure that no torture of British subjects is accepted, wherever in the world it may happen. If a Government know torture is happening, action has to be taken.

Martin Docherty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and am sure he will know that I will not disagree.
It was extremely important to set my constituent’s predicament in context and to relate it to the House. It is also important to note that Jagtar’s letter is clear—some would say it is in unemotional language—despite the horror that he must have experienced. It is available to the state authorities of the Republic of India to investigate, should they ever wish to.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent leadership on this issue on behalf of his constituent. Does he agree that from the outset we have been asking for a fair and due process—for unhindered legal access, unhindered consular access, and an independent medical examination and investigation, which has not happened thus far? We have also asked for answers from Ministers on behalf of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, but unfortunately they have not been forthcoming, either.

Martin Docherty: I certainly will not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that in the rest of my speech I will answer every element of his questions prejinctly and precisely, and I will not disagree with him.
The UK high commission in Chandigarh was initially made aware of Jagtar’s detention on 6 November 2017. It first attempted to visit him on 10 November, although I must make it clear to everyone in the House that that authority was refused by the state authorities. I first raised the issue via a point of order on the Floor of this very House on 15 November that year—the day before Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials were granted access.
It is important to set out the process and the narrative—the historical reality, even over the short period of a year. The Tuesday after officials were granted access, Jagtar’s brother Gurpreet was in the Public Gallery for Foreign Office questions and heard me ask about the case. Like me, he was encouraged at that point to hear the response from the then Minister of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who said:
“We take any allegation of torture seriously, as, indeed, do the Indian Government. It is completely unconstitutional and offensive to the British Government. We will work very closely to investigate the matter and will, of course, take extreme action if a British citizen is being tortured.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 858.]
Those were strong words that the family and myself appreciated. I will ask again at the end of my speech, but will the Minister today enlighten us as to what that   extreme action was and what the Government’s investigations concluded? We should also note that the then Minister was of course removed with due haste.

Jim Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has been tenacious on this issue over the past 12 months. Many of us have countersigned letters from him to the relevant Indian authorities. The Minister really has to tell us what the deputy high commissioner was doing making statements in The Times of India that certainly did not help Jagtar’s situation, along with why torture was allowed to continue without any real representations being made. I hope that he will answer these questions. A pattern is developing in which British citizens—either in Iran or in any other country now—seem to be under threat. I wonder what the Foreign Office is doing about that, and I hope the Minister will respond to that today.

Martin Docherty: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and grateful for his tenacious support over the past year, as I am for the support of so many Members from all parties. Many of them cannot be here today since the business has finished so early, because—would you believe it, Madam Deputy Speaker? —we seemingly have nothing to debate during Government time. What an incredible moment in the history of this place to be here when the House’s business falls at 4 o’clock in the afternoon. Nevertheless, it does give me the opportunity to talk for quite some time about my constituent’s case.

Chris Stephens: I thank my honourable comrade for giving way. He is making a fantastic speech, and he has been a tenacious campaigner. Will he give due credit not just to Members of this House, but to the hundreds of my constituents who have written to me about the issue? I am sure that I am not the only Member who has had hundreds of constituents writing in, expressing real concern about the lack of Government action.

Martin Docherty: I am grateful for that intervention. There are citizens from all across these islands—not just members of our communities who happen to be Sikh—looking to support Jagtar Singh Johal. Of course, the Sikh communities across these islands are profoundly disturbed by the situation, but citizens across the whole of the UK and abroad—in Canada, Australia and other nations—are communicating with me on a regular basis to extend their support for the family’s wish for due process.

Emma Reynolds: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his formidable leadership on behalf of his constituent. Does he agree that, apart from direct contact with the Indian Government, it is important that the UK Government also make representations to the UN, in particular about UN special procedures and other UN mechanisms that can push this case further?

Martin Docherty: The hon. Member is, of course, correct. I will go into that in a bit more depth later in my speech.

Alison Thewliss: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for pursuing Jagtar’s case in the way that he has. He has, in solidarity  with him, the support of the three gurdwaras in the Glasgow Central constituency. Does he agree that Jagtar’s case raises wider concerns for the members for each of those congregations that, when they travel to India, they may face similar threats and that there are real and genuine worries for their own safety?

Martin Docherty: I could not disagree, as I often say, with my hon. Friend. The gurdwaras not only in Scotland but across the whole of the UK share that concern about the ability of the Sikh diaspora to return to India and to engage freely. It is an issue for all of us as citizens, not just for those of a certain faith with clear relation to the Punjab. It is for any UK citizen travelling abroad to consider the support that they may be given once an issue arises.

Patrick Grady: Like others, I have heard from a significant number of constituents about this case, particularly from those who attend the Guru Nanak Sikh temple in Otago Street, but also, as he says, from the wider community. There are concerns about the different approaches that the UK Government seem to take to citizens held in captivity in different countries. Does he agree that there must be consistency of approach from the Foreign Office, that all UK citizens who are held overseas must be treated with fairness and justice, and that, where there is a question of injustice, we must make efforts to ensure that people have the opportunity to return home?

Martin Docherty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention; I think he might have read my speech and got to the end of it before me, because I was going to raise that point. I know that it is an issue not only for the all-party parliamentary group for British Sikhs—I see its redoubtable chair, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), in her place—but for the all-party group on deaths abroad and consular services, the chair of which is my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), who is on my party’s Front Bench at the moment.

Drew Hendry: rose—

Martin Docherty: I ask Members to bear with me, because I know that my hon. Friend wants to come in as well.

Drew Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I, too, pay tribute to him for his dogged pursuit of justice in this case, which is marked by a lack of action by the UK Government in providing some response. Does he agree that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office deserves great praise this week for the work that it has done for Matthew Hedges, and that the speed and application that it has used to resolve that case contrasts with the situation of his constituent, Jagtar? What does he put that down to? Why does he think that things have taken so long in Jagtar’s case?

Martin Docherty: If I had the answer to that, we would not need to have this debate on the Floor of the House today. I wish the young gentleman who has been released all the very best in their future. The clear issue is that my constituent is yet to appear in court and makes an accusation of torture. The similarity is glaring;  my constituent’s situation is profound. I am sure that the Minister may wish to consider my hon. Friend’s question when responding.

Hannah Bardell: My hon. Friend has done an incredible job of making representations on his constituent’s behalf. The details of the alleged torture are horrific. The all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad and consular services was set up to understand why people who die abroad or are incarcerated illegally do not have the representation that they deserve from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Does he agree that the challenge between diplomatic relations and consular services is something that we must look into more and that the Government must do everything they can to address, to ensure that Jagtar is released and gets proper representation and due process?

Martin Docherty: I will not disagree with my hon. Friend. Interestingly, over the last few weeks the BBC has decided to run a programme that is, I suppose, trumpeting the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, critically, the staff who work there—the vast majority of whom do a very good job; I am sure that there are some in the advisers’ Box. Their commitment, which I will go into in more detail later, is second to none. I must be clear that I have much respect for the Minister of State at the Dispatch Box, and am grateful for their personal engagement and support on this issue. However, right at the top of the FCO there are very serious concerns about investment.
When the BBC shows next week’s episode of how wonderful the FCO is—it will cover consular support, which has been mentioned—I do hope it gets to the nitty-gritty regarding the FCO teams on the ground. I am not saying that these teams are making it up on the hoof, but they are having to work with situations as they emerge without what I would consider to be a proper framework like those used by teams in the United States and other Commonwealth nations.
I hope to make some progress, because the fact that the Adjournment was moved early means that I could technically talk until about quarter past 7.

Hear, hear!

Martin Docherty: We will move on quickly.
Let me return to my constituent’s position. Things moved very quickly in the initial stages, and the then Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who I see is not even on the Back Benches today despite having a very substantial Sikh diaspora in their constituency—raised the issue with the Indian Minister of External Affairs. The following day, the UK high commissioner raised the issue again with Indian Ministers, and the deputy high commissioner even met with the Chief Minister of Punjab on 1 December.

Preet Kaur Gill: I thank the hon. Gentleman for acquiring this really important debate. He is making an excellent speech. May I put on the record how commendable his leadership in this case has been? I know that the situation has been very difficult. Does he agree that, despite the deputy  high commissioner in Chandigarh meeting with Jagtar, it is unclear what representations—if any—he made to the Chief Minister of Punjab in respect of the case and the serious allegation of torture?

Martin Docherty: The hon. Member makes a serious point of which the House must be aware. Yes, I am still of that opinion. The deputy high commissioner returned to the UK from India in recent months, and was discussing my constituent’s issue in public meetings. No invitation was extended to me as my constituent’s MP to discuss the case with the deputy high commissioner. No invitation was extended to his family—sitting in the Under Gallery today—to discuss it.
How did it come about that I and my constituent’s family got to discuss the issue with the deputy high commissioner, who has visited my constituent? I have not had that luxury. It was through the office of the hon. Member, who was aware of him being in the country. To say that that meeting was fraught, or even frosty, would, I think, be the diplomatic way of putting it. So, wholeheartedly, I cannot disagree with the hon. Member.
Although the initial contacts have been welcome—I cannot say that they have not—these issues create the consistent narrative over the past year: superficiality underpinned by an incoherent approach to consular support that should concern all of us. Whether or not the Government live up to the promise given by the then Minister of State about extreme action, I hope that when the Minister rises to respond, he will correct me if I have doubts about that.
I am glad to say that the Government have not been the only source of pressure applied to the Government of the Republic of India on Jagtar’s case. In this place, the APPG on UK Sikhs, led by the redoubtable hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, has been a great source of support for me, for the family, and for my staff—or rather my team; I do not use the word “staff”—some of whom are in the Gallery. It has been a great source of information and has done its bit to raise awareness of the story. A few of its members are in the Chamber today. I am extremely personally grateful to them.
The Sikh community across these islands make an invaluable contribution to our daily life and culture. They have also been vocal in keeping this case in the limelight. Whether it be organisations such as the Sikh Federation, or gurdwaras across these islands, I would not have been buttonholed by so many right hon. and hon. Members asking me about the case were it not for their Sikh constituents raising it repeatedly with them. I pay due tribute to those members of the Sikh community across the UK. They face some very difficult decisions about what it means to be Sikh in relation to India. There is a clear issue in how they approach return to the Punjab in relation to some of the issues we raise here today.
The Singh Johal family and I have been very grateful for the work that the charity Redress has done. Again due to the fact that the House’s business has fallen early, some of its staff and team who wanted to be here today cannot. I pay due regard to them for the work that they have done. Redress helps survivors of torture to obtain justice, and its attempts in this case have been most welcome. We heard earlier reference to the United Nations.  It was Redress that sent an appeal to the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Professor Nils Melzer, in December last year, asking the UN to ensure that the Republic of India could guarantee that Jagtar would suffer no repeat of the alleged torture of that November.
Jagtar’s case also featured in the report released earlier this year about the plight of UK nationals tortured abroad. However, it is my deep regret to say that this has not been met with any discernible reaction from the Republic of India authorities, despite the numerous examples cited in the Government-to-Government contacts, and despite my having first raised the issue with them some time ago.
In having this debate on the Floor of the House, I do not intend to disagree with the Government of the Republic of India on their sovereign right and ability to apply the laws of their republic in the way that they see fit. To do so from the Floor of a former colonial Parliament would be an affront to their dignity and the sovereignty of their citizenship. Nevertheless, my duty to my constituent is to highlight that serious charges have been laid, and I must only hope that they are tested in a manner consistent with the laws and practices of the Republic of India—that is, the rule of law and due process, some of the few things that I believe everyone in this House can support. However, I am afraid to say that those two necessary pillars of liberal democratic statehood are being sorely tested in Jagtar’s case.
Just over a month after he was arrested, and just after Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials had met with Jagtar, a story appeared on the “Times Now” website that appeared to show extensive knowledge of the case and, most disturbingly, showed a video of Jagtar confessing to several crimes—something that he obviously contends was done under duress. That has set the pattern for a series of seemingly well-informed leaks and briefings to Indian media regarding the case, which have caused great concern to those who wish to see Jagtar receive a fair trial and which have often had a sinister, if not sectarian, air.
In terms of due process, it is very important that I am not standing here—nor should any Member of any Parliament in a liberal democracy—demanding that under the rule of law a constituent is set free before trial if serious charges are being brought.

Hugh Gaffney: I would like to say on behalf of Scottish Labour Members that we support the Sikh community, and we support the hon. Gentleman in the work he is doing for his constituent.

Martin Docherty: I thank the hon. Member for that.
The notion is quite clear. My constituent has now been in court more than 60 times. Not one witness is brought forward—no one appears—and he is then taken back to prison. I wish for him to either receive a fair, transparent trial based on due process, with charges that are properly laid, or, if there are no witnesses and no evidence, for him to be released.

Pat McFadden: The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is the critical one. The legitimate role for him as the constituency MP and for others in the Chamber who represent large  Sikh communities throughout the UK is not to tell Indian Ministers or Indian courts what to do, but, through Ministers and the Foreign Office, to ask that citizens are afforded proper consular access, due process and fair trials. It is then up to the legal system to pronounce on guilt or innocence, but it is legitimate for us to ask for those things.

Martin Docherty: I certainly agree. The international rules-based system is being attacked at every corner, and those of us who believe in liberal democratic government should give no inch to calling out undemocratic practice, whether it be by a close ally, the Republic of India or the United Arab Emirates.

John Spellar: I thank the hon. Gentleman, my fellow member of the Defence Committee, for giving way. Is not the crux of the matter that if India is so sure about Jagtar’s guilt and thinks it has assembled so much evidence, it should either let him free or—I hope this is what our Foreign Office is saying—bring this to a conclusion and bring the case to a trial? Otherwise, with over a year having gone by, it has not established a case.

Martin Docherty: The right hon. Member makes a clear point. Since nearly day one in this case, state authorities in Punjab have been quite open that they believe my constituent to be guilty. They have conducted a trial by media, and they have made it quite clear that they expect him to be found guilty if a trial should ever take place. That clearly undermines the very principle of due process in the Republic of India, which should concern us all.

Carol Monaghan: My hon. Friend is passionate in support of his constituent, as he has been over the past year. Does he share my concern that the Indian authorities are currently not only sitting on their hands, but actually boasting of their diplomatic successes with the UK Government?

Martin Docherty: I am certainly not going to disagree, because I think everybody is boasting about their diplomatic successes against the UK at the moment in a most dreadful sense, and that should concern us all.
The epitome of the approach was seen in the recent appearance of Indian Deputy High Commissioner Dinesh Patnaik on the BBC Asian Network in January, when he breezily said that
“Jagtar will be charged and he has not been subject to torture”,
despite the lack of any public investigation by the authorities of the Republic of India and the fact that no charges were laid before the courts, basically, for more than six months. These realities must be passed on if people are to understand the true nature of what is happening. Such comments have led many to conclude that due process has been overlooked, if not intentionally undermined, and that many have already made up their mind about my constituent’s innocence or guilt—something that is utterly unacceptable to me, I am sure to the Minister and I hope to Members in all parts of the House.

Hannah Bardell: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Just to take him back very briefly to the point about media and press coverage, there are some  significant parallels with the case of my constituent Kirsty Maxwell, who was, we believe, killed abroad, in Spain. The stress it causes to the family when there is misreporting and misinformation in the media and often the lack of support from the FCO—I appreciate that there are significant challenges—is something that we absolutely must address. I commend my hon. Friend for the comments he has made and the challenge he has offered to the Indian press in regard to his constituent.

Martin Docherty: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. On the media and differing approaches, since I was first elected to this House in 2015, I have had to deal with several cases of consular support, where media intrusion has had a detrimental impact on the cases. That is true not just in Jagtar’s case. I am mindful of the case of my constituent Lisa Brown, who has been missing in Spain—we presume murdered—and the distress caused to her family by some of the ways in which the media approached that case. It is the same for many Members who have constituents who have died or are in detention abroad.
I can only hope that the publicity generated by this debate will leave the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in no doubt that it must not relent in its efforts to ensure that all these elements—transparency over the torture allegation; due process; the assumption of innocence until proven guilty; and the rule of law in ensuring that all allegations are dealt with appropriately—are addressed by the Government of the Republic of India. The family and I expect the FCO to fulfil these duties. Critically, at some point down the line, we may eventually be able to have a trade agreement with the Republic of India. What type of trade will we have where we might sacrifice our ability to defend democracy and its pillars for free trade?
Let me touch on elements away from Jagtar’s case that give me cause for concern. The job of a Member of Parliament gives you the privilege and the challenge of representing all your constituents, and this often means offering assistance when they have had adverse experiences abroad. As I have said, Jagtar’s case is not the only one that I have seen up close with the FCO. Although I have found the overwhelming majority of those who work in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be professional, dedicated and diligent representatives of their organisation—I cannot name them, but they have heard me say this—they are dealing with structures and resources that often do not allow them to give the level of service they would hope to. That can cause a large amount of frustration for family members and create a vicious cycle of misunderstanding and failed expectation.
When Jagtar’s brother and I hear a Minister of the Crown say from the Dispatch Box that they will take “extreme action”, we do not immediately appreciate—none of us would—that the staff at the sharp end of that action will be under-resourced, poorly supported and left at the whims of the politicians who lead that organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) shone a light on that in her work on the all-party group on deaths abroad and consular services. I am sure Members across the House will agree that this vital work should improve the experiences of our constituents, should they find themselves in the same position as Jagtar’s family.
We all appreciate that we are in the middle of the greatest upheaval in this political state’s foreign policy since 1921. If Members do not know what happened to what was then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1921-22, they should go to the Library. It has been all too often left unsaid in our present predicament that a “global Britain” of any sort must be properly resourced and that resources must not be to the detriment of consular services across the globe. Ensuring a consistent service, allowing the best practice, which we know exists in the FCO, and listening to the thousands of dedicated, diligent and professional staff across the globe to ensure that families who experience the worst are given a clear but compassionate idea of the roles of the FCO and the responsibilities it has towards them, would make a world of difference. They are not asking for huge elements of massive investment; they are asking for clarity and a process that we can all agree on.
Families such as Jagtar’s appreciate that there is no simple way to assuage their concerns, and that the efforts made by Ministers cannot always be made public or be shared with them. The family and I appreciate the efforts of the Prime Minister in raising the case with her counterpart, Prime Minister Modi, in April, but I am sure the Minister appreciates that we are wondering why it is still necessary to be asking many of the same questions as we were a year ago through an Adjournment debate on the Floor of the House of Commons.
You may be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am going to start bringing my remarks to a close.

Hannah Bardell: rose—

Martin Docherty: With that, my hon. Friend would like to intervene. I will certainly give way.

Hannah Bardell: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he share my concern about properly resourcing and training our consular staff? They do a very difficult job in some of the most challenging circumstances, but they will be facing up to £1 billion of cuts in the coming financial year. Add to that the challenge of Brexit, and our FCO needs the support of this Government and its Ministers to ensure that our constituents are properly represented when they get into challenges or trouble abroad.

Martin Docherty: I am not going to disagree with my hon. Friend. There is a resource issue. One of the FCO’s greatest resources is its members of staff. They have knowledge and capacity. No matter what I think of the constitutional position of this country, they are diligent professionals in their jobs.

Angela Crawley: I praise my hon. Friend for his tireless campaign on behalf of his constituent Jagtar and his family. Does he share my deep concern that, given the FCO’s recent success and the publicity around the Matthew Hughes case, it is simply not good enough for the Minister to stand here today and offer platitudes? There has been inaction and a lack of capacity in this case, which has resulted in Jagtar’s family being adversely affected. Does he share my concern that the Minister can and should do more in this case?

Martin Docherty: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. As parliamentarians, we all appreciate that every consular case is different. We cannot assume  that any case is the same and therefore we appreciate a level of flexibility. As I said earlier, in the case from the UAE, it is extraordinary how this has suddenly happened. I am delighted for them, but there are levels at which even the Minister could not answer the questions. I will give them that, because as I said the Minister of State has been resolute in their support.
We now need to wind up and ask the questions specifically on the case of Jagtar Singh Johal that the Minister will be able to answer, or to take away and write to us on. First, what does extreme action mean? Can the Minister tell us how that has been undertaken since those words were uttered by the then Minister of State at the Dispatch Box? What have the authorities of the Republic of India done, if anything, to address the allegations of torture that now rest with the UN rapporteur? Does the Minister agree with me that the leaks and briefings to the press from the authorities in India risk making a fair trial for Jagtar all but impossible?
Will the Minister tell me what plans the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has to improve the experiences of families of UK citizens who have adverse experiences abroad? Finally—this is the important question—when will the Secretary of State fulfil the commitment of their predecessor to meet me and the Singh Johal family? How has it come about that I am having to make that request on the Floor of the House of Commons when time and again communication with Ministers has not even seen a reply? It even got to the point, Madam Deputy Speaker, where I had to ask Mr Speaker how to go about getting an answer, to which the reply was, “You have written your letter, and if you have not had a reply, how about putting down a written question?” What an extraordinary state of affairs in a modern parliamentary democracy. What do we have to go back to? The quill and paper?
That question is important, because of the inconsistency of the narrative in other cases. The Foreign Secretary—both the present one and their predecessor—have unequivocally opened their doors to meet certain families in specific cases. I am absolutely delighted for them, but this is an extraordinary state of affairs. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) across from me. I said earlier that I would mention an incident that happened to us both in relation to this case. My hon. Friend, as a constituency MP, met the then Foreign Secretary and that meeting about my constituent—any MP can talk about an issue raised by their own constituents—made its way to social media. I was delighted that that raised the issue, but I was not delighted that the Foreign Secretary was sitting talking to another constituency MP about my constituent’s issue when they would not respond to letters and—I give a nod to the Minister, who is on a sticky wicket here—said from a sedentary position, “Wurr wurr wurr” and then was off within a week.

Eddie Hughes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Martin Docherty: I certainly will.

Eddie Hughes: I use the words “hon. Friend” deliberately. Jagtar’s cousin lives in my constituency and came to see me. I have a strong and large Sikh community in my constituency, so of course I took that the opportunity  to raise that case on their behalf. All I meant to do was add my weight to support the case being made by my hon. Friend.

Martin Docherty: I am delighted at what my hon. Friend did, because it gave the case impetus. It reminds the nation state and Members that this continues, but the Foreign Secretary had to be asked via someone else on the Floor of the House, “Are you going to meet him?” What a ridiculous proposition—that it comes to that stage. So the final question is: when is the Foreign Secretary going to meet the constituency Member for West Dunbartonshire and the Singh Johal family?
These allegations of mental and physical torture, of threats of violence against family members, simulated executions and forced confessions were horrifying enough when we first heard them more than a year ago. It has got harder as the year has gone on. Furthermore, the longer it takes for the authorities of the Republic of India to address the issue, the possibility of torture reoccurring cannot be ruled out. I hope everyone in this House can join me in beseeching the Government of the Republic of India to do all they can to ensure that transparency, due process and the rule of law win the day in this case.
I am grateful to the hon. Members who have attended this debate today, and to those who have intimated their support but who have not been able to be here. We are showing our support to the wider Sikh community across these islands for my constituent, a son of the Rock of Dumbarton.

Mark Field: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for securing this debate on the detention of his constituent in India, on whose behalf he has been working extremely hard this past year or so. I recognise the deep concern felt by a number of other Members who are gracing us with their presence in this Adjournment debate about Mr Johal’s situation. Representing as I do an inner-city seat—the one that covers where we are today—I, too, have a reasonably sized Sikh community in my constituency, and it has made me well aware at the outset of the issues in this case.
May I also say how much we appreciate what a desperately difficult time this must be for Mr Johal’s family and friends, as well as for the wider Sikh community in the UK, particularly in view of the specific concerns about mistreatment and torture, about which the hon. Gentleman gave us details?

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: Does the Minister appreciate and acknowledge that the family of Jagtar Singh Johal have been resolute in persisting that Jagtar is innocent? On the serious allegations of torture and confession under duress, the very least the family deserves is for the Foreign Secretary to meet them, along with the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), to try to get to the bottom of this issue.

Mark Field: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As he knows, although perhaps the House does not, we have tried to work together on issues to ensure that the important contribution the Sikh community has made is recognised. Work is ongoing to try to get a  proper memorial of the work done by that community during the wars. Obviously, I do not have control of the Foreign Secretary’s diary, but he will be well aware that this debate is taking place. It has not been a standard half-hour, two-Member Adjournment debate; the fact that so many Members have contributed is powerful. I will make representations to him that he should do as the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Jim Cunningham: I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said. I accept that the Minister cannot commit the Foreign Secretary to meeting the family, but he can certainly convey the message. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who secured a meeting with and spoke to the Foreign Secretary, it does not look good if the Foreign Secretary does not meet the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) about this case. It is important that we try to convey that to the Foreign Secretary.

Mark Field: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I always try to work on a cross-party basis, particularly on these very difficult matters. For those who are interested in the BBC programme on the Foreign Office, I believe that Thursday’s programme will talk about a particular consular case from Cambodia—my part of the world—on which half a dozen MPs on a cross-party basis expressed particular concerns.
Let me try to respond to many of the points that have been raised. I undertake to write to those whose questions I may not be in a position to answer fully.

Hannah Bardell: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to those points, I say gently to him that when I set up the all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad and consular services, I could not have imagined the impact that it would have on me and my staff, who have heard evidence from over 50 families. I cannot imagine what it is like for the family of someone who has died abroad, been incarcerated, held prisoner or gone missing. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, on a personal basis, that the testimonies of those families have highlighted to me that there are significant challenges and failings, and I believe that there are areas on which we can work together across the House, because almost every Member has had such a constituency case. I hope that he will give a commitment today to work with me and the all-party group to fix some of those issues and look for solutions to make sure that no family has to go through what Jagtar’s family—or any of the other families that we have heard evidence from—have had to go through.

Mark Field: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. While I inevitably cannot make a guarantee that no other families will go through some of these difficulties, I am clearly only too happy to work with her. Unfortunately, it is the nature of being a Foreign Office Minister that in the past 18 months, I have met several families—not constituents of mine, but of other hon. Members—who have been through the harrowing experiences to which she referred.

Martin Docherty: I am grateful to the Minister for the beginning of his response. I just want to reiterate all Members’ understanding of the commitment and  diligence of many of the members of staff in the FCO, who are the Department’s greatest asset. That needs to be put on the record yet again.

Mark Field: I am very pleased to hear that, not least on behalf of my private office and all who work in my team; I am very honoured and lucky to be a Minister in that Department. While I accept that, on occasion, mistakes can be made and there can be oversights—that is human nature—we generally have an extremely professional and dedicated team throughout the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but particularly in the consular area, where some extremely harrowing work goes on; that team deals with that daily. MPs all deal with constituents’ cases that are heart-rending to the first degree, but those cases are probably the exception, rather than the rule. In consular cases—I think particularly of our consular help in some of the Balearic islands, or in places such as Thailand—staff deal with the tragic deaths of young people virtually daily, and these things are very difficult.
I start by putting a formal apology on the record—this is something that I have done in writing—to Mr Gurpreet Johal for my Department’s failure to respond to his freedom of information request in a timely manner. We aim for the highest standards of customer service, and I am deeply apologetic about not having met those on this occasion.
As I said to colleagues in the House when this issue was last debated in March, Mr Johal’s case is very well known to me, and has been a priority for the Government at the highest levels since his arrest just over a year ago. The then Foreign Secretary raised concerns with his Indian counterpart soon after Mr Johal’s arrest, pressing for effective consular access. As the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire pointed out, the Prime Minister raised concerns about Mr Johal’s case directly with Prime Minister Modi of the Republic of India when he visited the United Kingdom in April.
Mr Johal’s situation has also been a priority for me. I personally raised his case with the Minister for foreign affairs during my visit to India earlier this year. I also raised it last month with India’s outgoing high commissioner to the UK, Mr Sinha, and just this morning, I was able to reiterate those concerns to the new Indian high commissioner. I can reassure the House that she is apprised of not just the FCO’s interest, but—very importantly—the interest of many parliamentarians in seeing a thorough and effective investigation of Jagtar’s allegations.
I would like to say something about the role of all-party parliamentary groups. In my view, they are invaluable. As many right hon. and hon. Members will know, I try to engage with their members in meetings as far as I can—I was at a joint meeting of the all-party groups on Bangladesh and Burma only yesterday. They are valuable because what happens in the House, whether in parliamentary questions or through all-party groups, is noticed and quickly reported back by high commissions and embassies, so I encourage hon. Members to work through APPGs—they are an effective way of making a strong case, even if they do put pressure on us as Ministers.
I want to touch on one of the disappointing things about this case. When I came into office 18 months ago, I inherited the notorious Chennai Six case, which had been dragging on for almost five years by that stage, and we were able to get the individuals released within a  matter of months. These things often take time. The Indian legal process can be slow, as indeed can ours—I am not making a value judgment—and, as I hope the House will understand, I have always tried when dealing with consular cases to downplay expectations, to under-promise and over-deliver, and to make it clear that sometimes one has to wait a long time for a response. I know it can be incredibly frustrating, particularly when there are allegations, as there are here, of maltreatment and torture, in which case it becomes an even more serious state of affairs.
As the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire will be aware, we have met with Mr Johal’s brother, Gurpreet, three times in the past year to discuss the very slow progress of this case, and I have offered the family a further meeting. I will try to make representations so that they can meet the Foreign Secretary, although I suspect that I would also be at any such meeting. Embassy officials, including our high commissioner in New Delhi, have raised concerns with the most senior officials of the Indian authorities on a number of occasions, and our consular staff have been working hard to assist Mr Johal and his family, both in India and here in the UK. I understand that staff in India have visited him 15 times since his arrest, most recently on 5 November. These visits allow us to monitor Mr Johal’s welfare and check that he continues to be able to meet his legal representatives in private, which was obviously not the case in the early months of his incarceration.
One of our key concerns in our representations has been Mr Johal’s allegations of torture and mistreatment during his initial period in police custody and his right to be afforded a fair trial. In all fairness, I would probably not have used the phrase “extreme action”—“extreme” is not something that many people would associate with me and my brand of politics—but none the less, such allegations are taken extremely seriously. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), who is no longer in her place, asked about raising the case with the UN and about the UN’s special procedures. We will continue to co-operate closely with all the mechanisms of the UN Human Rights Council, and we encourage all other countries, including India, to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. We will ensure that this case is brought to his attention.
On 14 December 2017, Mr Johal asked us to raise these allegations of torture and maltreatment. Once we had the details, we did so without delay, making clear our expectation that India should conduct an impartial investigation and an independent medical examination. We continue to raise the allegations vigorously.

Martin Docherty: Is the Minister saying that the authorities of the Republic of India have yet to respond to those questions, are refuting the allegations or are saying that these things happened?

Mark Field: At this stage, they are refuting that these things happened, but again, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the full details, if I may, because I would rather not inadvertently say something inaccurate on the Floor of the House.
Torture and mistreatment of detainees is prohibited under international law, and is absolutely unacceptable in any circumstances. We therefore take allegations of  such conduct very seriously, but we must also take care to avoid doing anything that might put the person making an allegation, or those connected with him, at any further risk. Our priority is always to ensure the best interests of the detainee.
I think many Members will understand that in cases such as this, a great deal of work often goes on underneath the radar rather than with a hell of a lot of publicity. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that any sense that there have been leaks and briefings to the press—again, I am not suggesting that that has happened, but clearly the press have run some stories in India—risks undermining any chance of a fair trial. That is not an acceptable state of affairs, and it would be no more acceptable here in the United Kingdom. Our priority will always be to ensure the best interests of the detainee. Decisions on the precise action that we might take in response to allegations of mistreatment will be made on a case-by-case basis, and only with the individual’s consent.
When British nationals are detained overseas, their health and welfare are our top priority. We make every effort to ensure that prisoners are receiving adequate food, water and medical treatment, and that they have access to legal advice at the earliest opportunity. In cases of dual nationality—the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) raised a particular case—we do not have that locus, a position that I think Members will understand, if not entirely support. If a person with dual nationality is incarcerated in the other country of which he or she is a citizen, it is not our place to have consular standing.
As soon as we hear about a detention or arrest, our consular staff will attempt to make contact and visit the individual as early as possible. Subsequent visits will of course depend on the nature and context of the case, and, in some cases, on the practicalities—someone who is imprisoned many hundreds of miles from the nearest consular headquarters or high commission may be more difficult to visit on a regular basis—but we are aware that for many detainees our visits are a lifeline, and that our staff may well be the only visitors that some receive.
I can assure Members that we aim to afford every case equal importance, and to provide tailored support and guidance for individuals and their families. There are more than 2,000 British nationals in detention around the world at any one time, and in the last financial year alone, our staff overseas dealt with approximately 5,000 detainees. It is difficult to operate a standard procedure when dealing with those numbers, and in some cases, with the best will in the world, we will be seen to have fallen short. I will try to ensure that we have flexible standards that we can apply across the board, while taking account of the differing circumstances. I am happy to work with the all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad and consular services to try to find a protocol that works for the future.
Providing consular assistance for any British national in distress overseas is central to our work at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Although the Government do not have a legal duty of care to British nationals abroad, we are proud that we continue to provide a comprehensive, round-the-clock service for anyone who finds themselves in difficulty. We work particularly hard to support those who may be vulnerable and are most in need of our help. We also have a long-standing partnership  with a charity called Prisoners Abroad, which gives practical and emotional support to British people who are detained overseas.
There are, of course, limitations to the extent of the service that we can offer. We are not in a position to make decisions on behalf of people, nor are we able to do everything that might be asked of us at any one time. As a matter of policy we do not pay outstanding bills, including legal fees, as we are not funded to provide financial assistance; nor does the FCO seek preferential treatment for British nationals. That means we do not, and must not, interfere in civil and criminal court proceedings, and the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire was very understanding on that in his contribution. It is right that we respect the legal systems of other countries, just as we would expect foreign nationals to respect our laws and legal processes when here in the UK. However, we can intervene on behalf of British nationals when they are not treated in line with internationally accepted standards or if there are unreasonable delays in procedures.
A number of colleagues have raised the case of Matthew Hedges, and everyone is delighted that the UAE has chosen to pardon him in such short order. The assistance we provide to British nationals depends entirely on the individual circumstances of the case and the local conditions, so it is unfair to draw, or make any implications about, comparisons in particular cases. Our actions are designed to be appropriate to the individual and as effective as possible. There is no suggestion of preferential treatment because of any cultural or other difficulties. The Chennai Six were all long-standing British, English and Scottish citizens; no racial element could possibly have been suggested for their lengthy incarceration.
In many ways the Matthew Hedges case is a good example of something all of us in the Foreign Office and in consular circles can rejoice in: a case that gets turned around unexpectedly very quickly. But for every win, as it were, of that description, there are many other cases where we are working extremely hard for many months, perhaps under the radar, without quick and positive results of that sort.
A number of colleagues have spoken movingly about the impact that a death overseas can have on loved ones, particularly when that death takes place in violent or   distressing circumstances. Our staff across the world will continue to work with dedication and empathy to support British nationals when they require our assistance. We welcome feedback from British nationals who have received consular assistance, and indeed from their relatives who have also had that assistance, and we will try to improve our services and staff. I make a pledge to work closely with the all-party group, and I hope Members present will play their part in that.
We are talking about some of the most distressing and difficult cases, and it is distressing to me that there are British citizens who feel that the FCO has fallen short in its consular service on some occasions. We will continue to take that very seriously, and if we can work together as a Parliament on a cross-party basis to find a way to make improvements, I stand ready to work with colleagues.
The detention of a loved one is distressing in any circumstances —it would be distressing to any of us if one of our relatives were in that position—and particularly when it happens overseas, where contact with friends and family is limited and the legal process is unfamiliar. Our consular staff at home and abroad work hard to support families in such situations. We often have locally employed members of staff who can speak local languages and have a greater understanding of the culture and the different legal processes, and they play an important part in our consular teams across the world. We take every case extremely seriously and provide dedicated consular assistance to those most in need of our help literally seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
In the case of Mr Johal, I can assure the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire that we will continue to do all we can to support him and his family. The fact that we have had this debate here today will make it clear to the Indian authorities and the new Indian high commissioner here in London that we will continue to raise our concerns about his case at the highest levels until there is a resolution.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.